Federal Travel: Opportunities Exist to Improve Data and Information Sharing
Published: 2016-07-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal agencies rely on travel to achieve a broad range of missions. GSA helps agencies develop travel policy by providing guidance to agencies, including issuing and revising the FTR. The administration and GSA have encouraged agencies to take steps to adopt cost-savings efforts and promote efficient travel spending.
House Report 112-136 included a provision for GAO to report on whether FTR revisions resulted in measurable reductions in travel costs. This report: 1) describes selected agencies' actions taken to address FTR revisions; 2) determines the extent to which FTR revisions led to cost savings; and 3) determines any cost savings achieved during fiscal years 2012 to 2015. GAO reviewed information from six selected federal agencies with the largest amount of travel spending in fiscal year 2015. GAO also reviewed how these agencies responded to GSA's FTR amendments and travel bulletins to achieve cost savings.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs, the six federal agencies with the largest travel spending in fiscal year 2015, pursued a variety of cost-saving efforts that generally aligned with regulations and guidance issued in either Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) amendments or General Services Administration (GSA) travel bulletins from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015. GSA administers and revises the FTR—which interprets statutory and other policy requirements to ensure that official travel is conducted responsibly—and minimizes administrative costs. Although GSA does not have the authority to enforce the FTR, it issues FTR amendments and travel bulletins to help federal agencies manage their respective travel programs and achieve travel cost savings through the provisions contained in the amendments and travel bulletins. GSA FTR amendments and travel bulletins issued between fiscal years 2011 and 2015 contained a total of 27 cost-saving provisions. Agency officials at each of the six selected agencies stated that their respective agencies either had policies in place that already addressed the cost-saving provisions; developed new travel policies or issued guidance that reinforced the provisions or updated existing policies related to the provisions; or advised employees to follow the FTR without implementing an agency-specific policy.
The six agencies reported that GSA's review of the FTR to revise obsolete and outdated policies influenced their actions and resulted in cost savings. However, most of these savings could not be quantified. Only four cost-saving efforts at two agencies—the Departments of Defense and Justice—could be quantified. These agencies reported that a wide range of factors influenced their cost-saving efforts. In addition to FTR-compliance efforts, these agencies reported that administration actions on reducing travel costs, cutting waste, and promoting efficient spending influenced their approaches to managing travel costs. Agency officials also reported that broader efforts to improve operational efficiency, and efforts to responsibly use resources, also influenced their agency-specific policies and practices to promote efficient travel spending.
According to GSA and officials from the six selected agencies, data limitations existed both within the selected agencies in terms of their ability to quantify travel-related cost savings, and government-wide in terms of comparing and aggregating travel data across agencies. Without standardized reporting practices, the federal government lacks common metrics for identifying, comparing and evaluating travel spending across federal agencies. The Senior Travel Official Council (STOC) was formed in 2015 to identify efficiencies and discuss best practices related to travel cost savings. According to its charter, the STOC allows agencies to work toward more consistent reporting of travel data and share information on cost-saving efforts. Although the STOC has taken some initial action to bring agencies together, additional efforts to facilitate agencies' information sharing and identification of promising practices could further enhance these efforts to encourage and achieve travel cost-saving across the federal government.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Administrator of GSA should work with the STOC to: 1) develop a travel data management approach that would provide GSA with more consistent travel cost data; and 2) as chair of the STOC, identify and implement promising practices to help agencies leverage travel resources and achieve cost savings.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal agencies rely on travel to achieve a broad range of missions such  as the Federal Emergency Management Agency responding to natural  disasters, and the Department of Agriculture inspecting food quality. The  administration and the General Services Administration (GSA) have  encouraged agencies to take steps to adopt cost-savings efforts and  promote efficient federal travel spending. The administration encouraged  agencies to develop “strategic alternatives to government travel, including  local or technological alternatives,” and identify ways to reduce costs and  ensure there are appropriate controls in place. GSA also helps agencies  manage their respective travel programs and achieve travel-related cost  savings by issuing and revising the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). In  response to potential cost-saving areas identified by the administration  and GSA regulations and guidance, some agencies have created or  modified agency-specific internal travel policies and processes to reduce  travel-related costs while accomplishing their missions.
In July 2011, in House Report 112-136 accompanying the 2012 Financial  Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, the Committee on  Appropriations directed GSA to create the appropriate interdisciplinary  and interagency teams to review and revise federal travel regulations,  and report on these efforts. In the same report, Congress included a  provision for us to report on whether the FTR revisions resulted “in  measurable reductions in cost.” This report: 1) describes agencies’  actions taken to address FTR revisions; 2) determines the extent to which  FTR revisions led to cost savings; and 3) determines any cost savings  achieved during fiscal years 2012 to 2015.
To address these objectives, we obtained travel budget data from the  Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) MAX database that identified  the six federal agencies with the largest travel spending in fiscal year  2015. These are the Departments of: 1) Agriculture; 2) Defense; 3)  Homeland Security; 4) Justice; 5) State; and 6) Veterans Affairs (see  table 1). Together, these six agencies accounted for about 84 percent of  the total government-wide travel budget in fiscal year 2015. To determine  the reliability of the data, the team cross-checked the MAX data against  the numbers reported in the corresponding President’s Budget  Appendixes. Data reported in MAX are subject to rigorous review and  checks through OMB to help ensure their consistency of the data. These  data were considered reliable for the purpose of this report.
In addition to the OMB Max travel data, we also requested the Travel  Reporting Information Profile (TRIP) reports for fiscal years 2012 through  2015 from the six selected agencies. Federal agencies that spend more  than $5 million annually for all travel (domestic and international) must  prepare and submit a TRIP report to GSA that consists of travel costs  incurred by the agencies. The report must contain summary-level data on  travel costs related to transportation, lodging, and other miscellaneous  travel-related costs. We used these data to understand the consistency of  agency reporting and considered them reliable for the purposes of this  report.
We reviewed the FTR travel amendments and GSA travel bulletins issued  from fiscal years 2011 to 2015 to identify cost-saving provisions. We  identified three relevant FTR amendments and four GSA travel bulletins  that contained a total of 27 cost-saving provisions (see appendix I). We  asked officials at the six selected agencies to complete and respond to a  data collection instrument that listed the GSA cost-saving provisions,  asked how their respective agencies responded to these, and asked  agencies the extent to which the 27 cost-saving provisions resulted in  cost savings. Because agencies were generally unable to quantify cost  savings, we also interviewed officials at the selected agencies to identify  whether any of the GSA cost-saving provisions resulted in efforts to  reduce travel costs, and whether or not cost savings related to these  efforts were quantifiable.
For the purpose of this report, we defined travel cost savings as  reductions in costs associated with individual travel-related transactions.  Reduction in travel-related transactions might not result in reduced total  travel spending at an agency. Agency officials may allocate these savings  to support other travel needs. The use of these terms is consistent with  the principles of Executive Order (EO) 13589, “Promoting Efficient  Spending” (Nov. 9, 2011), and OMB Memorandum M-12-12, Promoting  Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations (Washington, D.C.: May  11, 2012).
We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to July 2016 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 believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: FTR Amendments and GSA Travel Bulletins
paragraphs: To help federal agencies manage their respective travel programs and  achieve travel cost savings, GSA issues and revises the FTR. According  to the FTR website, GSA promulgates the FTR to: (1) interpret statutory  and other policy requirements in a manner that balances the need to  ensure that official travel is conducted responsibly with the need to  minimize administrative costs, and (2) clearly communicate the resulting  requirements to federal agencies and employees. Formal changes to the  FTR are identified as amendments and published in the Federal Register  in accordance with the rulemaking provision of the Administrative  Procedure Act. GSA officials stated that, while the agency develops and  promulgates the rules and amendments that comprise the FTR, it does  not have enforcement authority for agencies’ compliance with FTR  requirements. In addition to FTR amendments, GSA also issues travel  bulletins (nonbinding guidance) that GSA officials said can typically be  issued within a shorter timeframe than final rules published in the Federal  Register. According to GSA officials, the travel bulletins are generally  issued to remind agencies of existing FTR requirements.
section_title: Executive Order 13589
paragraphs: Administration actions have encouraged agencies to develop  mechanisms by which federal agencies could reduce travel. For example,  EO 13589, “Promoting Efficient Spending” called for agencies and their  components to: 1) to devise strategic alternatives to government travel,  including local or technological alternatives, such as teleconferencing and  video conferencing; 2) conduct business and host or sponsor conferences  in a space controlled by the federal government, wherever practicable  and cost effective; and 3) designate a senior official responsible for  developing and implementing policies and controls to ensure efficient  spending on travel- and conference-related activities.
section_title: OMB Memorandum 12-12
paragraphs: Following the issuance of EO 13589, OMB issued a supporting  memorandum on Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency  Operations. In order to support the cost saving goals of the Executive  Order, the memorandum explained the role that travel plays in supporting  agency missions and supporting local economies. At the same time, the  memorandum required that each agency reduce its spending on travel  costs, and provided that specific travel policies be established or clarified  to manage travel budgets more efficiently and to reduce reliance on  travel. The reductions were time limited through fiscal year 2016, but the  memorandum explained that the intent was, among other things, to make  the reductions in travel budgets sustainable.
section_title: The Government-wide Travel Advisory Committee
paragraphs: In 2012, GSA formed the Government-wide Travel Advisory Committee  (GTAC) to review existing travel policies, processes, and procedures.  GSA formed GTAC to: 1) review existing travel policies, processes, and  procedures; 2) ensure that the policies and procedures are accountable  and transparent; and 3) help federal agencies achieve their missions  effectively and efficiently at the lowest logical travel cost. In 2015, GTAC  issued a report that provided advice and recommendations to GSA to,  among other things, incorporate industry best practices. In 2015, GSA  also established the Senior Travel Official Council to assist in the  administration’s efforts to promote efficient spending.
section_title: Travel Reporting Information Profile
paragraphs: Data used by the agencies to prepare Travel Reporting Information  Profile (TRIP) reports for GSA are maintained within each agency’s travel  system, which is part of the E-Gov Travel Service 2 (ETS2). The TRIP  report requires agencies to provide aggregate travel cost data  (transportation, lodging, and meals and incidentals) for five travel  categories: employee emergency—travel related to an unexpected  occurrence/event or injury/illness that affects the employee personally  and/or directly that requires immediate action/attention; mission (operational)—travel to a particular site to perform  operational or managerial activities; special agency mission—travel to carry out a special agency  mission and/or perform a task outside the agency’s normal course of  day-to-day business activities that is unique or distinctive. These  special missions are defined by the head of agency and are normally  not programmed in the agency annual funding authorization; nontraining conference—travel performed in connection with a  prearranged meeting, retreat, convention, seminar, or symposium for  consultation or exchange of information or discussion; and,  training—travel in conjunction with educational activities to become  proficient or qualified in one or more areas of responsibility.
section_title: E-Gov Travel Service 2
paragraphs: GSA encourages federal agencies to use ETS2 reporting capabilities as a  means to track, monitor, and report on costs related to travel spending.  ETS2 is a comprehensive travel services program that brings a reporting  capability to the agencies’ travel programs. In addition, GSA created  ETS2 with the expectation that the services available under ETS2 would  1) enable federal agencies to further consolidate travel services,  platforms, and channels; 2) improve the leverage of government travel  spending; 3) increase transparency for improved accountability; and 4)  reduce waste. According to GSA officials, ETS2 provides the travel  reporting capability that aligns with and supports OMB’s Memorandum M- 12-12. ETS2 can generate reports related to an agency’s travel costs and  other travel-related activities. For example, through ETS2 an agency can  generate operational reports to monitor day-to-day travel services, travel  management, and regulatory reports that can be used to foster and  encourage an agency’s managers to make informed decisions. By 2013,  GSA awarded the development of ETS2 to two contractors that allowed  agencies to design a travel data cost system that best meets their  respective needs.
section_title: Cost-Saving Efforts at Selected Agencies Generally Aligned with Regulations and Guidance
subsections: section_title: Selected Agencies Already Had Travel Policies in Place Prior to the Issuance of Regulations or Guidance
paragraphs: Officials at each of the six selected agencies stated that, while their  respective agencies pursued a wide range of cost-saving efforts to  address the GSA cost-saving provisions, all of them had policies in place  that addressed these provisions prior to GSA issuance of either an  amendment or travel bulletin. Some of the agencies’ cost-saving efforts  involved these agencies updating internal policy statements, issuing  internal guidance, configuring their ETS2 to require justifications for  making a policy exception, and providing in-person and web-based  trainings. For example, Department of Defense (DOD) officials stated that  for half of the travel bulletin provisions (10 of 20) DOD’s related actions  had been in effect since at least 1998. In one instance, DOD included a  provision in the December 1998 Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) that  limited reimbursement of employees buying rental car insurance. This  included the collision damage waiver adjustment and theft protection.  This aligned with the 2014 GSA Bulletin FTR 14-05’s guidance  recommending that travelers decline additional insurance when renting  vehicles. Similarly, the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) travel  system contained a restriction prompting travelers to provide a  justification for not using a CPP fare, as well as confirmation that the  alternative air fare is greater than the “least logical airfare plus 75.00  dollars.” In addition, USDA’s internal travel policies state that each  agency and staff office is expected to use the method of travel most  advantageous to the government, including lower-cost airfares.
section_title: Selected Agencies Developed New Policies or Guidance to Reinforce or Update Existing Internal Travel Policies
paragraphs: According to officials at the six selected agencies, they were already  taking action to address the issues introduced by FTR amendments and  GSA travel bulletins. However, because the bulletins served to reinforce  existing policy, these actions resulted in these agencies’ officials taking  further actions—either developing new travel policy or issuing a  memorandum to staff reminding them of existing agency travel policy—to  highlight the policy. For example, according to officials at the Department  of State (State), while the agency had codified the requirement for using  contract air carriers in its own Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at least as  early as 2005, the more recent GSA travel bulletin on contract and  noncontract airfares influenced State to reinforce the policy by issuing  departmental notices and cables to all diplomatic and consular posts  outlining the parameters for the use of commercial airfares. Similarly,  DOD officials said that the agency addressed two cost-saving provisions  within the same GSA travel bulletin by taking a new action to augment an  existing policy. One provision addressed the issue of reviewing internal  policies to ensure that the agency’s use of CPP contract and non-contract  air carriers resulted in overall cost savings. The other provision addressed  agencies’ management of their internal procedures to assess risk  associated with using non-contract fares, which officials said they  addressed through the same cost-saving effort. DOD officials stated that  they had already taken a related action prior to the issuance of the  bulletin. However, the travel bulletin resulted in DOD updating the JTR by  strengthening the language related to using restricted fares and requiring  the use of a Decision Support Tool to assist in determining if a restricted  fare may be advantageous to the government.
In other cases, FTR amendments or GSA travel bulletins prompted the  six agencies to take new actions. In these instances, these agencies took  action as a direct result of the recently-issued GSA provisions for which  they had not previously pursued a related cost-saving effort. This usually  happened through the development of a new agency-specific travel policy  or the issuance of a memorandum to staff reminding them of existing  agency travel policy. For example, one FTR amendment addressed the  use of rental cars that resulted in the Department of Justice (DOJ) issuing  a memorandum advising travelers that pre-paid fueling options for rental  vehicles are not authorized according to the amendment. This was a cost- saving effort that the agency had not pursued prior to the amendment.
section_title: Selected Agencies Advised and Reminded Employees to Continue Following the FTR in a Variety of Additional Ways
paragraphs: Officials at five of the six selected agencies described a few cases where  their respective agencies took no specific policy action, but either: 1)  advised employees to follow the FTR; 2) asked individual components to  create unique policies that ensured FTR compliance; or 3) provided  approving officials with the discretion to oversee employees’ compliance  with the FTR as appropriate, and determine whether or how to adopt  promising practices from the GSA travel bulletins. For example, according  to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, employees were  reminded to follow the FTR. However, if any of the agency’s components  needed to clarify or address parts of the FTR not specifically covered by  the agency’s Financial Management Policy Manual (FMPM), DHS  empowered them to do so. For example, FMPM does not have a specific  policy prohibiting reimbursement for purchasing pre-paid fueling options  for rental cars, a GSA requirement. However, DHS officials stated that  employees were asked to “exercise the same care in incurring expenses  that a prudent person would exercise if using his or her personal funds  while on personal business.” According to officials, components and  travelers were still responsible for adjusting their travel actions to remain  compliant with the FTR even when DHS policy could not be promptly  updated. According to DHS officials, “as questions are raised by the  travelers, the policy staff at each component provides the guidance  necessary to maintain FTR compliance.”
In another example, officials at State refrained from taking a policy action  to address two provisions in GSA Bulletin FTR 13-03 because the  department wanted to provide approving officials with some discretion  over travel decisions on individual trips and vouchers, such as  determining if a rental car is a better option than public transportation for  travelers, and whether travelers should be required to share rental cars  and taxis while on official travel in groups and when public transportation  is not a better option. The cost of transportation is among many factors  approving officials weigh when deciding. Given a wide diversity of factors  across global locations in safe, secure, and available local transportation  options, State officials told us that at that time they did not dictate a  centralized policy on employee sharing of rental cars and taxis in order to  leave this discretion to the traveler’s approving official. Use of public  transportation over rental car usage, remains in the traveler’s approving  official’s discretion. State subsequently updated their FAM on Dec 7th,  2015 with specific provisions for rental cars on official travel. They said  this allows approving officials the discretion to apply the prudent traveler  rule, which in application “should clearly require employees to share  rental cars while on official travel in groups.”
We also found that the selected agencies initiated travel cost-saving  efforts that were in addition to provisions recommended by GSA. For  example, a September 2015 Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO)  report—DOD Travel Reform—said that DTMO tracked numerous cost- saving travel reform initiatives for policy simplification that it pursued  outside of the actions taken related to GSA’s bulletins and FTR  amendments. These initiatives include: 1) standardization of  reimbursement rates for privately-owned vehicles into a single rate; 2)  creation of a standard travel rate to ensure that per diem is very limited  for trips in which it takes a day to travel to a temporary duty (TDY) travel  location; and 3) expansion of the definition of incidental expenses to  include miscellaneous expenses.
In another example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials  stated that in addition to the web-based training material providing for  reduced per diem for long-term TDY, VA had additional requirements that  were beyond the scope of GSA’s bulletins and FTR amendments and that  targeted additional cost savings. These requirements stated that travelers  must stay in weekly or monthly rentals during extended assignments  whenever possible and reduce their meals, incidentals, and expenses  when the traveler is able to obtain lodging or meals at lower costs.
section_title: The Senior Travel Official Council Encouraged Cost- Saving Efforts among the Agencies, but More Information Sharing Needed
paragraphs: The Senior Travel Official Council (STOC) brings travel officials from all  federal agencies together to share information and best practices to  further cost-saving efforts. GSA established the STOC in 2015 to  identify consistencies and best practices in the areas of travel policy,  programs, and procurement. According to GSA officials, STOC is  designed to help agencies make better use of their travel cost data to  make informed decisions about internal policymaking and replicate  actions taken by other agencies that implemented successful cost-saving  policies and practices.
According to STOC meeting minutes, the council has taken some steps  toward information-sharing efforts that could benefit all federal agencies.  For example, in 2015, the council initiated a pilot program involving eight  agencies to share promising practices in five areas: online booking,  airfare savings, hotel reservations, car rentals, and SmartPay usage.  Based on the pilot, STOC will come up with policies and processes that  other agencies can choose and implement. In a December 2015 STOC  meeting, officials from DOJ and the National Science Foundation  provided information on actions they took prior to the pilot, and how those  actions resulted in cost savings at their agencies. DOJ noted that their  cost savings programs had top-down agency support and agency officials  implemented a policy change that required online booking and the lowest  logical airfare. By implementing this policy, DOJ officials claimed a  savings of more than $9.2 million when using lowest logical airfare (non- refundable tickets) and an online booking rate of 68 percent in fiscal year  2015. According to GSA officials, the STOC plans to encourage agencies  to pursue these policies beyond the pilot program.
However, according to GSA officials and STOC meeting minutes, STOC  members have yet to take full advantage of the STOC to network and  learn about other agency-initiated policies that could lead to potential cost  savings. According to GSA officials, the STOC members had not yet  formally shared much information about other promising practices for  tracking and monitoring savings that could be replicated to benefit other  federal agencies. However, these officials said that the STOC is still in the  early stages, and opportunities for agencies to share information have  been limited. Such practices could help agencies to develop and  implement cost-saving efforts, and quantify those efforts when possible.  Without using the STOC meetings to engage in information sharing about  these practices, agencies have a limited ability to learn from and apply  other agencies’ methods for using E-Gov Travel Service 2 (ETS2) data  reports to track and monitor the impact and effectiveness of their policies  on travel spending reductions.
section_title: Most Efforts to Reduce Agency Travel-Related Spending Could Not Be Quantified
paragraphs: Only four cost-saving efforts at two of the selected agencies—DOJ and  DOD—could be quantified. DOJ officials were able to quantify their  estimated cost savings for implementing three cost-saving measures: 1) a  savings of more than $15 million due to the use of non-contract, non- refundable fares from fiscal year 2015 through the first quarter of fiscal  year 2016, 2) an increase in the use of video conferencing that saved an  estimated $16.3 million during fiscal year 2010, and 3) a requirement for  the use of online booking for travel reservations whenever possible that  saved nearly $3.4 million in transaction fee savings for fiscal year 2015.  DOD officials also reported quantifiable cost-savings related to a GSA  provision—which promoted implementing a per diem reduction for travel  over 30 days that DOD adopted by mandating a per diem reduction to  75 percent of the locality rate for TDY at a single location that extends  between 31 and 180 days and 55 percent for TDY of 181 or more days— that resulted in savings of over $56 million between November 2014 and  December 2015.
Although most cost-saving efforts at the selected agencies were not  quantifiable, agency officials described how cost savings were likely  achieved and what data limitations existed. Officials said that attempting  to quantify many of the cost savings efforts would be a very labor  intensive effort, and would require documenting the cost of decisions  which are not made at the individual travel voucher level. For example, at  VA, a travel policy stipulated that in selecting a particular local  transportation method, the agency should consider, among other things,  the accessibility and availability of public transportation at the TDY  location. Therefore, VA officials said they did not approve car rentals in  areas where public transportation is accessible and available, such as  Washington, D.C. While VA officials stated that this approach likely  resulted in cost savings by having travelers avoid expensive hotels and  city parking fees, they could not quantify these cost savings.
In other instances, the selected agencies could not provide evidence of  quantifiable cost savings at the aggregate level because travel data were  not available from certain components within their agencies. For example,  many sub-agencies within DHS kept track of and reported some cost  savings through the elimination of non-mission critical travel, and by  maximizing the use of conference calls and web-based training and  meetings. However, DHS did not track such savings at the department  level and could not quantify them for us. According to DHS officials, they  were unable to determine or quantify cost savings at an aggregate level  for most measures because DHS components had a wide variety of ways  to avoid costs that were most appropriate for their unique missions, and  the agency did not have a tracking mechanism to identify costs avoided.  In addition, State officials said that there may be some limitations in their  ability to collect and report data since travel at State is decentralized with  each office authorizing, conducting, and collecting its own travel data.
Generally, it was not possible for most of the selected agencies to  associate any one description of cost savings with a specific GSA  provision. Officials at the agencies we interviewed told us that a wide  range of factors influenced cost-saving efforts, including, but not limited  to, GSA provisions contained within FTR amendments or GSA travel  bulletins. For example, in addition to responding to GSA provisions at  DHS, officials credited the Secretary’s initiative to cut costs and improve  overall operational efficiency as a reason for taking action on some of the  same issues later recommended by GSA. Officials also cited other  government-wide factors including requirements under Executive Order  13589 and OMB Memorandum M-12-12 that influenced cost saving  efforts at agencies at the same time officials responded to GSA’s cost- saving provisions.
section_title: Travel Data System Limitations Hinder Agencies’ Ability to Identify Cost Savings
paragraphs: According to officials at five of the six selected agencies, a number of  limitations in the travel data system designed by GSA and maintained by  the agencies affected their ability to identify cost savings related to  implementation of cost-saving provisions in FTR amendments and GSA  travel bulletins. GSA officials stated that while most agencies have the  capability via ETS2 to track, monitor, and report on cost savings, this  reporting capability is not being leveraged consistently across the federal  agencies to manage their travel costs. However, because agencies can  customize ETS2 to fit their particular needs, these advances may still not  provide for common reporting of travel information across federal  agencies. Further, officials at GSA confirmed that while ETS2 offers  better tracking and monitoring of travel costs compared to its  predecessor, it still cannot provide for a central means of collecting and  reporting data that would be reliable for the purposes of comparison  across agencies.
Access to quality travel data is essential to performing key travel  management tasks. The 2015 Government-wide Travel Advisory  Committee (GTAC) final report stated that access to quality data requires  maintaining data from multiple sources in an integrated framework  whether a system, database, or data management tool that would allow  federal agencies to compile and maintain enterprise-level travel data  sufficient to support business decisions, respond to government-wide  data calls, leverage sourcing strategies, and comply with the Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993. However, GTAC found that the  federal government still had not started maintaining data from multiple  sources in a single, centralized, and integrated framework, whether a  system, database, or data management tool. The report’s findings  supported the GSA officials’ statements. According to GSA officials, there  is a need for more standardization in travel management reports to give  GSA the ability to compare travel cost data between agencies that use  either of the two ETS2 vendors, and report government-wide trends.  Agencies’ abilities to customize their reporting options without also  meeting standard reporting requirements hinder GSA’s ability to establish  a common metric for tracking and monitoring federal travel spending.  Agencies are also unable to fully assess the travel costs incurred by their  staff. Thus, they are unable to fully identify areas for potential cost  savings.
ETS2 allows agencies the option to select between two vendors who can  assist them with the tracking and monitoring of travel cost data. Agencies  can customize and configure their travel data systems to meet their travel  needs in alignment with their policies and business needs. According to  GSA officials, because agencies can customize and configure their travel  data systems, and because of the lack of government-wide standards on  cost savings metrics, it is difficult for GSA to facilitate peer-to-peer  comparisons across the federal agencies. For example, officials said that  while both ETS2 vendors have a standard report to help agencies  determine their hotel attachment rates within the system, one vendor’s  report collects information on hotels booked within the data travel system,  and the other vendor’s report collects information on hotels booked  outside of the data travel system. As a result, it is difficult for agencies  and GSA to determine if travelers at all agencies are taking advantage of  the reduced rates available when booking their lodging along with  transportation.
Additionally, one of the goals of ETS2 is to help agencies achieve greater  data transparency. The required TRIP reports provide travel spending  information that was previously not tracked in ETS. This includes  breaking out the travel and lodging costs into the five different categories  of federal travel. Because of a standardized template used to generate  the TRIP reports and the increased capacity of ETS2, agencies are now  able to report travel spending in more consistent formats. While this  indicates the potential for a greater level of tracking and monitoring of  travel spending by agencies, GSA officials believe that this may not be  achieved unless agencies adopt common reporting practices.
According to GSA officials, in late 2015, they began to plan a shared  services model to help agencies better manage their travel programs.  This model would allow agencies to share a wide range of travel services  with each other to reduce both administrative costs and burden to the  government, and enable data-driven decision making. According to GSA  officials, based on the draft business plan the shared services model  would be able offer government-wide data collection, benchmarking, and  reporting standards that agency managers can access and use to inform  decisions. According to officials, under the shared services model, while  the agencies would still be the decision makers regarding agency-specific  travel policies, GSA would be able to advise them on which system  configuration would allow the agencies to obtain the lowest travel costs  relative to mission objectives.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The six selected agencies that accounted for more than three-quarters of  federal travel dollars (Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice,  State, and Veterans Affairs) did pursue a variety of efforts aimed at  reducing travel costs that generally aligned with GSA’s amendments to  the FTR and travel bulletins. However, these agencies generally lacked  data to track these efforts. GSA’s efforts to track and monitor travel costs  across federal agencies is similarly limited by a lack of standardized data  as reported by individual agencies. More standardized data reporting  could help GSA advise agencies on how to limit travel costs while still  achieving their agencies’ missions.
GSA created the STOC to identify efficiencies and discuss practices for  achieving travel cost savings. However, STOC members have not yet  taken full advantage of this opportunity. As the STOC moves forward,  opportunities exist to help agencies share information. Additional attention  to these issues by STOC can help agencies develop, implement, and  share their travel cost-saving efforts. Such additional attention to these  issues could in turn help STOC promote the more efficient use of travel  funds across the federal government without imposing additional  requirements on agencies.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: The Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the STOC,  should develop a travel data management approach, including common  reporting formats that would provide GSA with more consistent travel cost  data allowing GSA to compare travel costs across federal agencies. GSA  could also include in this data management approach the planned  implementation of the shared services model that would allow agencies to  share a wide range of travel services with each other. This process could  reduce both administrative costs and burden to the government and  enable data-driven decision making.
The Administrator of GSA, as chair of the STOC, should work with the  STOC to identify promising opportunities and implement leading practices  to help agencies leverage their travel resources and implement travel  cost-saving efforts.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator of the GSA and the  Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State,  and Veteran Affairs for review and comment. GSA agreed with both  recommendations as discussed below. The Departments of Defense,  Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs provided technical comments which  we incorporated as appropriate. The Departments of Agriculture and  Homeland Security had no comments to our report.
In written comments received on June 30, 2016, GSA staff agreed with  the two recommendations in this report and agreed to take the following  actions to address them. In response to the first recommendation, GSA  officials stated that they will conduct a test program to determine the  opportunities and barriers of creating a reliable standardized data  repository containing government-wide travel spending data. To address  the second recommendation, GSA officials agreed to establish an STOC  working group to implement a process of documenting promising travel  management and cost-saving practices, which could be used by Senior  Travel Officials at their respective agencies.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, and the aforementioned agencies. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or sagerm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Travel Cost-Saving Provisions Contained in Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Amendments and General Services Administration (GSA) Travel Bulletins Issued between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2015
subsections: section_title: FTR Amendments Lodging Reimbursement
paragraphs: 76 Fed. Reg. 63844, (Oct. 14, 2011) (codified at 41 C.F.R. § 301-11)
Agency must not reimburse real estate expenses or the lodging portion of per diem for the  purchase or sale of a personal residence or recreational vehicle at the temporary duty (TDY) travel  location.
Agency must not reimburse the lodging portion of per diem to travelers who lodge at their personal  residences while on TDY.
Removal of Conference  Lodging Allowance Provisions   78 Fed. Reg. 65210, (Oct. 31, 2013) (codified at 41 C.F.R. §§ 301-11 and 301-70)
Agency must no longer use the conference lodging allowance reimbursement option for  employees on TDY. This refers to the allowance for travelers to exceed the lodging rate by up to  25 percent.
If per diem lodging rates are unavailable at conference location, travelers should construct a cost  comparison to decide whether to find lodging within per diem that is away from the conference  location or reimburse actual expenses for lodging at the conference location that does not have a  per diem rate.
section_title: Enhancement of Privately Owned Vehicle and Rental Vehicle Policy
paragraphs: 80 Fed. Reg. 27259, (May 13, 2015) (codified at 41 C.F.R. §§ 300-3, 301-10 and 301-70)
Travelers must use the least expensive compact car available unless an exception is approved.
Travelers will not be reimbursed for purchasing pre-paid fuel for rental cars. Travelers should  refuel prior to returning the vehicle to the rental car company.
Travelers will not be reimbursed for fees associated with rental car loyalty points or transfer of  points charged by car companies.
section_title: GSA Travel Bulletin Promoting Efficient Travel Spending
paragraphs: FTR 13-03, Dec. 21, 2012  Agency should justify that employee travel is necessary to accomplish the mission.
Agency should consider technological alternatives to travel.
Agency should consider all viable lowest-cost transportation options, such as selecting a non- contract airfare.
Agency should have controls in place to collect all refunds for unused or partially used airline  tickets.
Agency should encourage employees to use public transportation as the first option for local  transportation when on TDY.
Agency should increase employee sharing of rental cars and taxis.
Agency should encourage employees to evaluate all lodging options that are within per diem.
Agency should evaluate reduced per diem for TDY assignments that last more than 30 days and a  Temporary Change of Station for TDY assignments that last more than 180 days.
section_title: Emphasizing FTR Opportunities for Achieving Reduced Travel Costs through Use of City Pair Program (CPP) Contract and Non-Contract Airfares
paragraphs: FTR 13-07, June 4, 2013.
Agency should review internal policies to ensure that use of City Pair Program contract and non- contract air carriers results in overall cost savings.
Agency may authorize use of non-contract airfares in three scenarios, including when a non- contract fare, if used, would result in a lower total trip cost to the government.
Agency must consider (1) all direct costs, including per diem and actual transportation cost, and  (2) indirect costs, including overtime and lost work time, when authorizing a method of  transportation.
Agency must assess risk associated with using non-contract airfares, which includes ensuring that  the traveler reasonably anticipates using the ticket.
Agency should configure the E-Gov Travel Service (ETS) to reflect an airfare selection policy that  is designed to achieve the lowest total trip cost.
Agency must book all travel airfare through appropriate ETS booking channels regardless of fare  type.
section_title: Rental Car (Passenger Vehicle) Requirements
paragraphs: FTR 14-05, Jan. 16, 2014.
Agency should review agency policy to verify that it is abundantly clear that all rental cars must be  authorized only when in the best interest of the government.
Agency should ensure travelers book rental car reservations through ETS where available or  arrange car rentals through agency’s Travel Management Center (TMC). No other methods may  be used.
Agency should ensure travelers are familiar with the Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO),  U.S. Government Rental Car Agreement and encourage them to rent cars from participating  vendors.
Agency should educate travelers to decline additional insurance, such as collision damage waiver  or theft insurance, which travelers generally may not be reimbursed for.
section_title: Designation of Agency Senior Travel Officials
paragraphs: FTR 14-08, May 13, 2014.
Agencies are strongly encouraged to notify GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy of the name  and contact information of the employee selected to be responsible on an agency-wide basis (i.e.  the “Senior Travel Official”) for ensuring efficient travel spending.
Agencies should consider including certain major responsibilities as part of the Senior Travel  Official position, such as researching best practices and recommending actions to improve  efficiency and effectiveness of travel programs and directing and managing agency travel  programs to obtain economy and efficiency.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. General Services Administration
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact name above, Tara Carter (Assistant Director)  and Joseph Santiago (analyst-in-charge) supervised the development of  this report. Jehan Chase, Kelvin Dawson, Keith Logan, Michael O’Neill,  Laurel Plume, Silvia Porres-Hernandez, Steven Putansu, Wesley Sholtes,  and Stewart Small made key contributions to this report.