As E-travel came on line, some of the most vocal complaints that we heard from the program offices and individual travelers involved the sudden “appearance” of fees for booking online or going through an agent.  The fee schedule was confusing and could be complex.  Many claimed that they had never had to pay the fees before (they had, but often they were considered part of the ticket price), and there were a lot of complaints about having to pay fees if the traveler was “doing all the work” to book the travel on line. A good part of the initial outreach involved educating people about the fees, and how to budget for the fees when planning travel. Our government travel staff provided a working estimate for a “typical” online and agent-assisted ticket, and that helped programs simplify their budgeting which also reduced their anxiety about having enough funds on hand on the authorization.  Over the last three or four years travelers have become much less sensitive to changes in the ticket fees.

Today, we have seen the price sensitivity shift from the really minor cost of ticketing fees to more requests for waivers from having to use the city-pairs contract tickets.  This becomes a major issue particularly during the first quarter of the fiscal year and the very end of the fourth quarter when funds are in short supply.  Congress’s perpetual inability to pass a budget in a timely manner exacerbates the problem because continuing resolutions only provide a portion of an agency’s budget with a 10% reduction from the prior fiscal year.  When a researcher has travel scheduled several months in advance timed to attend a conference or do field research, it is not feasible to simply delay the trip.  This larger price sensitivity is also a long-term issue for GSA’s City-Pair program that will have to be addressed in future City-Pair negotiations if the program is to continue to be viable.  The paying programs and their travelers have become much more sophisticated in their use of the e-travel systems, both government and private, and they are expecting more from the government programs as well.

by Julie Speers

Before the advent of the government travel credit card most Temporary Duty (TDY) travel was limited to a small cadre of individuals.  Service members often could not afford the added expense of traveling without an advance payment.  Travel advances created a series of challenges that were difficult to overcome: the major challenge of travel advances was that the system was labor intensive, it often resulted in more overpayments, and it was less secure for service members to travel with cash.

The lengthy travel advance process began with the service member completing a DD Form 1610, Request and Authorization for TDY Travel of DOD Personnel. The disbursing clerks were required to verify the requested dollar amount in order to ensure that it was in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) and the Marine Corps Travel Instruction Manual (MCTIM) prior to processing the advance for payment.  After the voucher was approved by the auditor for payment, the disbursing clerk created a DD Form 1351-6, Multiple Payments List. The member was then paid via cash or check depending on where s/he was located.  The government travel credit card eliminated the tenuous advance process; service members were able to receive funds for travel with the credit card. The new system reduced the number of indebtedness due to overpayment from advances. It also improved the security and safety of the service member, and reduced the disbursing work load required for advance payments.

The second major evolution for the Department of Defense was the elimination of the paper vouchers, and the conversion to the computerized DTS.  With the old system, the paperwork was completed by the service member, turned in to the administration office, and hand carried to the disbursing office where it would be logged in to an internal tracking system. The travel voucher package included an Original DD Form 1351-2, the original DD Form 1610 (travel order), airline itinerary and final stub, lodging receipts and one copy of all other receipts for expenses greater than $75.00.  Completed packages were difficult to obtain, and often a series of problems developed in the movement from service member to auditor.

If the travel voucher package was not logged into the disbursing system the service member would have no means of tracking the travel voucher package. Assuming the travel voucher package was logged into the internal tracking system properly, the next hurdle was ensuring the entire package made it to the disbursing clerk’s desk, was computed properly, and then sent to the auditor intact. If the entire process did occur, and the service member did not claim expenses that were not in accordance with the JFTR or the Joint Federal Regulation (JTR), then the claim was complete and the service member would be paid.

With the advent of the Defense Travel System (DTS), the service member is able to track his/her voucher from beginning to end on his/her office computer.  All receipts are loaded into the system electronically, and are maintained for six years and three months. Lost or misplaced items are no longer an issue.  When a member completes a voucher, DTS cross checks it against the Joint Federal Travel System for compliance, and problems with claims that are not in compliance with regulations are also eliminated.

It is not necessary to have lived through the previous stages of government travel to understand the current system, but it does help to have an understanding of the history of travel to better deal with the challenges of the future implementation of government credit cards and DTS.  As Fredrick Allen said, “Only fools who do not heed the lessons of History, are doomed to repeat it!” Travel professionals need to be aware of where we have come from in order to better facilitate the future.  Understanding the obstacles of the old system may circumvent challenges in the new one.

By G.W. McCurtis

By the late 1970s airlines were installing CRS’ in travel agencies throughout North America. For almost two decades, approximately 80 percent of the CRS’ in travel agencies came from two CRS companies—Sabre which was owned an operated by American Airlines, and Apollo by United Airlines. Travel agencies leased the CRS’, including the hardware, from the airline. The system looked much like a personal computer does today, but it was different in an important way. It was a dumb terminal: meaning it could exchange information with the airline’s central computer, but it could not do any processing of its own. Reservations on hundreds of major airlines throughout the world could be made on any of these systems.

The 1990s brought many changes to CRS’, partly because of the spreading use of the personal computers and the Internet. The systems themselves are now usually called global distribution systems (GDS) and most systems are owned and run by companies independent of the airlines. Other changes in GDS’ are more obvious to users. Dumb terminals are a thing of the past; on today’s GDS’, users can run a host of programs to perform tasks such as word processing, accounting, and database management. Both command interfaces and graphical interfaces are available. And GDS’ offer a wealth of information on all travel products, not just air travel.

The companies that run GDS’ are sometimes called hosts or vendors. They obtain revenue from suppliers that pay to have their services included in the system as well as from travel agencies that subscribe to the system.

Many suppliers such as Southwest, Airtran, and Jet Blue have their own computerized reservation systems but still participate in a GDS. They have the choice of various levels of participation, for various costs. For example, an airline might have its schedule displayed on the GDS, but not information about the availability of seats on its flights–this is the least expensive level of participation. More expensive levels of participation may indicate the availability of seats on a particular flight or allow the reservations to be made through the GDS. At the most expensive level of participation, there is a direct link between the supplier’s computer system and the GDS allowing the user to receive up to the minute reservation information.

Airline, hotel, and rental car participation in a GDS paved the way for today’s E Gov Travel Systems. Our E Gov Travel vendor provides a one-stop shop that allows our government travelers to process their travel documents, book their reservations and claim reimbursement once their trip is complete all using the same system. This progressive evolution came from the government and the travel industry working together to forge relationships that modernized government travel.

by Carole Byrd

Disclaimer: The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.  Use of this equipment is consistent with the agency’s policy governing limited personal use.

Particularly in heavily franchised industries, the dissemination of rudimentary information explaining proper invoicing could prove useful. From within the hotel industry alone, a large corporate client or government agency representing significant CONUS travel spend could face the prospect of working with hundreds of individual corporate structures due to the popularity of the franchise model. While most franchise operations are professionally run with sophisticated accounting systems in place, many still struggle to understand and implement fundamentally sound accounting practices. Basic literature and/or a single online resource highlighting the basic requirements of the different reconciliation processes would go a long way toward helping the brands guide these franchise locations to better operations, thereby resulting in an improved final step in the travel transaction.

Enhancing the ease of access to any such existing information also would prove beneficial to both the traveler and the vendor. Encouraging local workshops through Convention & Visitors Bureaus, Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development Commissions, Small Business Administrations, and other community-based organizations would help reach those smaller businesses and franchisees who might otherwise not have the resources to attend trade conferences to obtain similar information.

By: Mark Feggeler

Disclaimer: The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.

“You must exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business.”

One of the areas where this is extremely important is premium class travel. Premium class includes both business class and first class.  It is best described as any class other then coach class for air travel and any class other than the lowest class available on a train.  It is important to note that on the Amtrak Acela Express, the lowest class available is business class and is deemed advantageous to the Government and no further agency approval is needed (FTR §301-10.164).

Even though the FTR is specific on when you can authorize premium class accommodations, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that internal control weaknesses governmentwide led to improper use of premium class travel as stated in their September 2007 study. Some of these weaknesses included lack of tracking and knowledge of amount of business class travel being authorized, issuing less restrictive guidance for executive travelers, large differences in premium class travel guidance governmentwide, and no reporting requirements by GAO or GSA on business class travel.

A follow-up Memorandum was issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in January 2008 to remind agency heads of the premium class travel requirements as stated in the FTR and the importance of having clearly defined internal controls in place to ensure proper authorization of premium class accommodations. The Memorandum stated that GSA would be revising the FTR to implement the GAO findings.  In the meantime, GAO asked agencies to implement the following policy requirements internally immediately:

• Require that premium class travel requests for all agency personnel, including senior level executives be approved by an individual at least at the same level as the traveler, or by an office designated to approve premium class travel;
• Develop and issue internal guidance that explains when mission criteria and intent call for premium class accommodations;
• Define what constitutes a rest period;
• Require annual certifications of a disability, unless such disability is lifelong;
• Restrict premium class travel for both temporary duty and permanent change of station travel (relocations) when the employee is not required to report to duty the following day; and,
• Prohibit blanket travel authorizations for premium class travel, unless the traveler has a certification of disability.

OMB also stated that GSA is in the process of preparing agency guidance to collect and report on business class travel, similar to the existing first class travel report requirement. OMB will also begin working with Executive branch agencies to develop a risk-based review, reporting, and audit framework for premium class travel.

The agency I work for implemented the GAO requirements listed above into our current travel policy.  We are patiently waiting to see what policy changes GSA will be adding to the FTR.  We have begun collecting data on business class travel even though we have not yet received a formal request from GSA.  Hopefully, stricter travel policy and reporting requirements will reduce or eliminate the misuse and abuse of premium class travel.

by Angela Williamson

“The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.”

Within my office we offer and manage many different credit card programs for the many customers whom we provide travel services for.  Lately we have been heavily involved with preparing for our internal transition to the new contract/vendor.  With current master contracts expiring on November 29, 2008, organizations are never permitted to extend their task orders beyond the current expiration date.  Furthermore, agencies cannot begin processing transactions under the new program until November 30, 2008.

My office services a very diverse customer base, and with that each customer’s needs are very different.  With the award of a new Master Contract, agencies must make a final determination of the task order type that best suits their needs.  Currently there are four types of task orders offered.  There is the ‘Standard’ which contains the same requirements as the Master Contract; the ‘Tailored’ which includes agency specific requirements; the ‘Tag-along’, which “piggybacks” or uses another agency’s task order; or the ‘Pooling’ arrangement where two or more agencies collaborate to develop and issue one task order which will meet the pooled agencies’ needs.

Dedicated staff within our office has been working closely with our customer agencies to ensure and facilitate a smooth transaction to the new SmartPay 2 system.

by Brian Shears

What was surprising to me about solicitation TFL06-RH-1040 was the vast scope and limited timeline of the project. The project requires that TRX establish data feeds with not only DTS and the three ETS vendors, but also with:

• multiple charge card vendors (presumably GE Capital, Chase, Citibank, US Bank)
• every government TMC/CTO (which I understand there are approximately 100)
• settlement data (i.e. ARC)
• data direct from suppliers (air, car, hotel)

When you step back and think about the scale of the project from a technology perspective, not to mention the privacy and security issues, it is immense. And now for the laughable part: GSA required the contractor to achieve “full operational capability” within 180 days (6 months) from the date of award. That is simply not feasible.

TRX was awarded the contract in December of 2006. That would have meant the business intelligence system was generating reports from all requested data feeds by June of 2007. Credit GSA for implementing what might turn out to be a world class travel management system, but they need to comprehend the scope of their request and establish realistic timelines.

By Ted Schuerman

The Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) requires mandatory use of the government travel charge card by government travelers.  However,  each agency policy can mandate when an IBT should be obtained depending on what each agency considers a “frequent” or “infrequent” traveler.

If a traveler is issued an IBT government charge card, the card may only be used for official government travel expenses such as lodging, transportation expenses, and meals while on official travel.  Travelers should also be using the card’s Automated Teller Machine (ATM) capability to obtain cash advances if necessary.

Both the agency and the traveler benefit when the travel charge card is used.  Travelers no longer need to carry large sums of cash by using their government travel charge card.  As a convenience for the traveler, there are many ATM’s across the country that will accept the travel card when a cash advance is needed.  Some hotels and rental car agencies waive Federal taxes when travelers use their government travel charge card.

The government agency also benefits by receiving a rebate on purchases charged directly to the travel charge card.

By: Robyn Rice

“The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.”

The basic document types an EGOV travel application can produce include an authorization, a temporary duty voucher, a local voucher, and amendment documents for both authorizations and vouchers.  Other document types can include group authorizations, blank authorizations, constructed vouchers, and interim vouchers.  The authorization documents produced from the EGOV travel application serve to create an obligating document in the financial system.  Amendments to authorizations act as the modifications to the obligating documents in the financial system.  Both the temporary duty voucher and local voucher in an EGOV travel application provide for the creation of invoices in the financial system.  Amendments to vouchers act as supplemental invoices to the original invoices in the financial system.  A group authorization created from an EGOV travel application would also provide for the establishment of obligating documents in the financial system.  In order for group authorizations to be usable for the creation of obligation documents in the financial system, the group authorization must contain details on all travelers included in the group authorization along with any differences, i.e. accounting, expense details, etc.  Blank authorizations from the EGOV travel application would also serve to create obligating documents in the financial system.  The key with blank authorizations would involve the EGOV travel application’s functional ability to create multiple vouchers from a single authorization.  Constructed and interim vouchers created from an EGOV travel application would also serve to create invoices in the financial system.  The primary concern with both constructed and interim voucher types is again the functional ability of the EGOV travel application to correctly and consistently produce the document types without error.

Determining the vendors required for the creation of each obligating and invoice document is crucial to a successful interface.  Vendors required for both the obligating and voucher documents could include the traveler (or employee), credit card vendor for centrally billed obligating items, credit card vendor for items billed to the traveler’s individual government credit card, and a third party vendor for items paid directly to a third party such as the vendor for the EGOV travel application.  Creating obligations and/or invoices in the financial system under the correct vendor for the appropriate dollar amount is reliant on the level of detail the EGOV travel application transmits for each transaction.  The EGOV travel application must be able to supply with each transaction, at a minimum, the expenses broken down by vendor or vendor type and expense category in order to create an obligating document and/or invoice in the financial system.

The accounting requirements of the financial system must be taken into consideration when developing an interface for the EGOV travel application to the accounting system.  The EGOV travel application should be analyzed to determine the availability for accounting flexfields along with the total number of characters the EGOV travel application can transmit for a line of accounting.  To reduce the required number of characters an EGOV travel application is required to transfer, the interface can default values that are the same for all transactions.  Using an alias for some or all of the accounting elements housed in the EGOV travel application is also a method of reducing the number of characters required for the EGOV travel application to transmit to the financial system.  The use of alias account values would, however, require additional coding in order to crosswalk the values along with the additional time and effort needed to maintain the crosswalk going forward.

The travel specific information transferred to the financial system from the EGOV travel application will be dependent primarily on the information available that accompanies each transaction from the EGOV travel application and the fields available in the financial system to house the information.  The basis of what is needed to be housed in the financial system should be driven by expected reporting needs of the agency(s).  Travel specific information that is generally required with some financial reporting include the begin trip date, end trip date, authorization number from the EGOV travel application, and traveler name.  Other travel specific information routinely requested is the trip purpose of the travel and the per diem location(s) for the trip.  The financial system may have limited fields to house the travel specific information needed for reporting purposes.  In the case of limited fields in the financial system, it is possible to use a delimiter such as a pipe, colon, or semi-colon in order to segregate multiple values in one in a single field.

By Grant Brown
“The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.”