Jump to content

Government Mandated Travel Accommodations and Rates


Recommended Posts

We have a CPFF contract that states "Travel (to include per diem) costs shall be consistent with the JTR" and then in the PWS says "Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines."

The Government has taken this to mean they can tell the contractor employees they have to stay on base, in squad bays, in barracks, etc. and eat in the military dining hall even if the XYZ guidelines do not require it. They have also gone as far to say our contractor employees cannot drive so they cannot rent a car to go to a hotel or eat somewhere else.  A lot of time this is as a result of a Commander saying their military personnel are staying in barracks, so why wouldn't the contractor personnel? Or why would they allow them to eat somewhere else since the dining hall is cheaper?

Our internal travel policy is based on the FAR regulations which allows for commercial lodging, with the note that this may not happen if there is a contract requirement. Also, from my perspective, unless the XYZ guideline says the contractor shall stay on base, they cannot limit it. I also do not believe they can limit the per diem even if they stay on base based on our policy of provide the fixed per diem amount no more than the GSA amount in accordance with FAR 31.205-46(a).

We have already had a basic discussion with the KO who stated that we should do whatever the military personnel do despite the FAR references, but since this is a huge impact, I want to attempt to reengage and have a more meaningful discussion with additional references if possible. 


Thoughts on how to approach this with the KO? 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ReadTheContract848 said:

The Government has taken this to mean they can tell the contractor employees they have to stay on base, in squad bays, in barracks, etc. and eat in the military dining hall even if the XYZ guidelines do not require it.

If we knew what the XYZ guidelines were, we might be able to be helpful.

But still, even if the XYZ guidelines do not require staying on base, do they allow for staying on base?  If so, maybe the agency's direction is "in accordance with" the guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is difficult to interpret exactly what it means to "be consistent with the JTR" the JTR does require use of government quarters for travelers to US installations if they "are adequate and available" (page 2-30). Maybe the question would come down to whether a barracks is considered adequate.

Meals appear to be treated similarly in the JTR, if they are available on the installation where the traveler is staying, the traveler doesn't get full per diem (page 2-37).

I think in general when a contract says "travel will be in accordance with the JTR" both the Government and the contractor expect it to just mean flights should be economy class and lodging and per diem should be within established rates, but the actual JTR says a whole lot more. Of course since it also says it does not apply to contractors the issue is a little more confusing. It seems like a good practice would be for the contract to explicitly state which specific parts of the JTR are to apply under the contract, e.g. travel and per diem rates, and not just reference the entire thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RJ_Walther said:

It seems like a good practice would be for the contract to explicitly state which specific parts of the JTR are to apply under the contract, e.g. travel and per diem rates, and not just reference the entire thing.

Therefore, I’d also say “Read the Contract” as a whole. 

17 hours ago, ReadTheContract848 said:

the PWS [specifically*] says "Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines.

* added by me

Echoing ji:

17 hours ago, ji20874 said:

If we knew what the XYZ guidelines were, we might be able to be [more**] helpful.

**added by me

It seems to me from the limited information so far (e.g., what are the XYZ guidelines(?), any pre-award inquiries(?), any pre-award discussions or clarifications(?), price proposal details(?), etc.), that the government has stated its intentions in the “contract”.

Since this is an awarded contract, I think that the contractor should have been aware, before award, the meaning of the statement “Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines.”

This is a CPFF contract. Therefore, it was apparently a negotiated competitive or sole source acquisition.

Why is this issue being raised now, after award?

1 hour ago, RJ_Walther said:

the JTR does require use of government quarters for travelers to US installations if they "are adequate and available" (page 2-30). Maybe the question would come down to whether a barracks is considered adequate.

Meals appear to be treated similarly in the JTR, if they are available on the installation where the traveler is staying, the traveler doesn't get full per diem (page 2-37).

@ReadTheContract848, were you or others in your company aware of the stated requirement for government accommodations in the solicitation and what the JTR actually includes in addition to per diem rate limits, as applicable to the stated “government accommodations”?

You indicated that your personal “perspective” contradicts the stated solicitation and subsequent contract requirement…

Something in the pre-award process for this CPFF contract is either unspoken here or seemingly amiss…

 

 

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m also curious, If your employees will essentially be stuck on base with no off-duty transportation provided for, was this addressed in your proposal or otherwise considered before award?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

23 hours ago, ReadTheContract848 said:

Thoughts on how to approach this with the KO?

I’m not sure whether this is a pre-award question or post-award, contract administration question. It concerns the “contractors workforce”, although not the “contracting workforce.”

The answer depends upon whether it is  pre-award or post-award as well as answers to the questions raised above by respondents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...