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

Once we moved to an eTS we considered continuing with one of our current travel agencies as an accommodated TMC.  However, the one TMC, which partnered with our eTS and was embedded, offered a lower price for both traditional and on-line booking and came with a great reputation as a travel agent.   In addition, we avoided additional costs that the eTS vendor would charge us to accommodate our current TMC.  We also had a short time period for implementation and needed a solution that was already in place.

The first year of our eTS implementation was filled with TMC issues, both from the TMC and from the interface with the eTS.  Our travelers would arrive to the airport without reservations, reservations would get stuck in queue and agent international expertise was non-existent. Both the eTS vendor and TMC were willing to work with us to improve service.  We developed logs that tracked every issue and had standing weekly conference calls with the TMC to address each issue.  Many of the issues were due to lack of training for the agents as well as a lack of communication between the eTS and their subcontractor TMC.  Over time the logs reduced in size and travelers stranded at the airport became a thing of the past.

Looking back I believe we made the right decision by going with the embedded TMC.  Since we were the first to fully deploy an eTS I believe many of the issues would have surfaced regardless of the TMC we chose.  The vendor has continued to add additional embedded TMC’s to provide options to our customers.  Although we have more options now, most of our customers have decided to remain with the original TMC and are happy with the current level of service.

by Diana Bonnell

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.

One of the goals of the President’s Management Agenda E-Gov Travel Service was to provide a cost savings to the agencies. The agencies can only achieve these cost savings by promoting and encouraging self-service reservations whenever possible. A simple trip from Washington Dulles to Atlanta should not require agent intervention. Yet it does even if booked online, because the City Pair carrier is Air Tran. It is conceded that Air Tran and another similar carrier, Jet Blue offer very low city pair fares, some of the lowest in all the markets. In this day and age of automation and 3GB I-phones, a Government traveler should be able to book any city pair fare online as a self-service transaction.

by Jacqueline Lynch

In order to accomplish this, we have a Departmental travel contact for the agency’s Bureaus that assits. After that, we verify with Civilian Board of Contract Appeals that adjudicates travel claims. Cases are submitted to a panel of judges for case determination. Ruling can be cited on decided cases as a basis for us or any agency to substiantiate or deny a travel claim.

Another recourse is to contact the General Services Administration directly since they promulgate the FTR.

Our Helpdesk staff are able to answer general travel policy questions from the FTR and/or agency policy. Since we have about 40 customers, this is a real challenge to keep all the separate agency items understandable for our agents. We also maintain a smaller staff to research complex travel policy questions as well as to ensure travel policy is correctly presented in our E-Gov Travel system. This area also creates and updates travel policy information on our customer websites as things change.

By Daniel Carozza

“The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Bureau of the Public Debt, or the U.S. Department of the Treasury.”

Second, the article does not note that per diem for a CONUS city is broken into two parts. The first part is for lodging, the second is for meals and incidentals. Government workers on CONUS travel, under GSA rules, receive up to the Government rate for hotels in an area (with some exceptions). However, that part of the per diem is limited by what the employee actually spends. Employees booking their own hotels have no incentive to book at a Motel 6 or La Quinta that is below per diem if they can book at a Hilton at Government rate. Also, since the per diem for meals and incidentals is paid at a flat city rate, if an employee can book a hotel that serves breakfast on Government rate, that means that he/she has more money to spend on other meals and incidentals.

Third, in some cases Government travelers simply leave hotel selection to TMC/CTOs. It appears that their hotel selections are probably guided by the commissions paid.

Fourth, this chapter does not discuss how CONUS per diem is paid on a 24 hour clock. This is a GSA phenomenon which is often confusing to Government travelers and impacts on per diem for short trips. I know that under the rules in effect the last time I traveled, GSA assumed that airlines provided meals. Has this/is this being changed in light of the fact that many airlines are no longer providing meals or are charging travelers for meals?

Fifth, recently airlines have begun adding charges for first and second bags, meals, blankets, etc.. I am curious as to what, if anything, is being done to account for these differences between airlines in city pair rates? Also, does the traveler absorb these extra costs as part of his/her per diem?

by Scott Goldsmith

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

These rates are published annually, adjustments to the rates are made throughout the year, and may change as often as monthly.

A study is conducted every 3-5 years on Meals and Incidental (M&IE) expenses, in an effort to obtain more accurate prices charged by restaurants in the areas frequented by federal travelers.  In the last study the M&IE for FY10 tiers was increased from $46.00 to $71.00.

Included in incidental expenses are fees and tips given to porters, baggage carriers, bellhops, hotel maids, stewards or stewardesses and others on ships, and hotel servants in foreign countries.  Transportation between places of  lodging or business and places where meals are taken, if suitable meals cannot be obtained at the temporary duty site.  Mailing cost associated with filing travel vouchers and payment of Government charge card billings.

If lodging is not available at your Temporary Duty (TDY) location, your agency may approve up to 300% of per diem for the location where lodging is obtained.  On the first and last day of travel federal employees are only eligible for 75 percent of the total M&IE rate for that TDY location.

By: Kathy Runion

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

Oregon has had a managed travel program for over 15 years.   The model was patterned after the GSA and has worked well.  One thing that Oregon does is it keeps the number of travel agencies who are authorized to provide contracted air fares, to one.    The State of Oregon partners with the Oregon University System (OUS) to consolidate travel volume and leverage spend.  We allow the OUS to contract with a limited number of additional travel agencies who meet their unique needs.

This practice has been tremendous in the state achieving at least $7 million in annual savings than paying published fares.   Airlines like to see controls in place.  Those controls include a single form of payment, authorization procedures in place, and a limited number of travel agencies selling the tickets.    The more controls, the better the savings.

Another tremendous advantage in having just one TMC, all of the travel spend is contained at the one source.  It certainly makes it easier to have a single report showing all of the travel spend, vs. trying to compile multiple reports by hand.

I am not saying this may be the best way, by having multiple agencies, there could be an advantage to use an agency that better suits a travelers need, or one who is closer in location.  But in today’s environment, most travel agencies can offer services to meet everyone’s needs and since tickets are issued electronically, whether next door or across the state, the method of delivery remains the same.

by Tim Hay

Federal travelers are required to use a Travel Management Service (TMS) and their ETS. In 2003 the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) were published to state in Chapter 301-50:3 that travelers must use the ETS once it becomes available through their TMS.  However, for reasons beyond my control or understanding there remain individuals and groups who appear to continue to follow business as usual with no regard to the change in the FTR.  And, until someone with a lot more importance or influence than I have puts a stop to it, the practice will never change.

The ETS is the current way of doing business in the government. In November, 2003, three competitively bid E-Gov Travel Service Contracts were awarded to: CW Government Data Systems Corp (EDS), Northrop Grumman Mission Systems (NGMS).

Over my 20+ years in the travel field for the government; I have seen many changes.  However, I believe the current ETS can be a highly effective way of doing business IF and WHEN we can train, convince, or somehow force the employees out there who are resisting the change to utilize the system.  As long as there remain exceptions (as in employees) we will never have a fully effective system.

The current ETS is not designed to handle the Permanent Change of Station (PCS) vouchers, so these will continue to be processed manually at this time.

I believe that as Bureau Administrator for the ETS, it is very important for me to maintain an open line of communication with both the Department and our contracted ETS vendor.

Having a good working relationship is important no matter what level you are, or who you are working with.  In my position, it is extremely important as customer service is my main concern.   As travel administrator, I am the help desk for my office.  I also have Regional administrators who forward issues they cannot resolve up to me.  I serve as the liaison between the Regional administrators and the Department and ETS Vendor.

The relationship you build with your ETS vendor is a very important relationship.  We count on them to provide us the flights, hotels, and rental cars that we need to conduct our business; at the lowest possible prices.  If you do not have a good relationship with your vendor, how do you expect them to be willing to work with you on getting flights to small offices loaded into the GDS?  Or to make programming quirks or changes to enhance the system to better suit our needs?

Sure, there are times and issues that we all wish would get resolved, we as government employees feel the ETS vendors just aren’t listening to us on the priority of some of the issues, however; after taking this course, I now understand that the vendor is probably sitting over there with a list just as long as ours trying to figure out how to make everything work for everyone.

If you have a good working relationship with the E-Gov vendors TMC team, they will be more willing to work with you in resolving your help desk issues, and to resolve questions that they get from our employees.  Gradually; by working together, the issues and problems will decrease, which means the call volume for both of you decreases.

The ETS is a constantly evolving system, as we mold and modify it to make it compatible with our day-to-day operations.  Of course, the travel industry is constantly evolving as is government reporting regulations, so the ETS system must continue to be a work in progress to keep up with the changes demanded of it and its users.  Not only are we making demands for changes to keep up for current reporting requirements, we are preparing for implementation of a new financial system, so our ETS vendor is having to work with us on that as well.

Presently, we are in the testing mode for the next version of our ETS system, which I hope implements easier than the first.  So far; it appears to be more intuitive and user friendly which is what our travelers were asking for.

Shirley Keller

“The comments presented here are mine personally and do not reflect the views of either my agency or the government.”

It has been my experience that acquisition personnel are also not familiar with the details of the Master Contract when they place the Task Order for the agency.  The Task Order is not a complete contract and it does not have many of the specifics that are in the Master Contract.  And of course, the travel teams at various agencies are most familiar only with their own negotiated Task Order  This leads to unnecessary confusion and even botched negotiations when dealing with exactly what is covered by the Master Contract.

A case in point, a few years ago our travel agency was bought by another TMC vendor,  After introductions they informed us that we would soon owe them an additional fee for segments because the GDS had enacted new fees after an interim law forbidding such increases had recently lapsed.  Now the TMC had known for several years that their GDS fees would increase and would have to be passed on to the civilian agencies, but they were presenting this to us as a “new” fee.  Our Contracting Officer was inclined to agree to the fee under the Task Order, since the TMC said that DOD had agreed to pay the fee without any protests and “other agencies” were also going to be agreeing.  I challenged the fee on the grounds that it should’ve been known prior to the vendor when they were doing their pricing proposal on the GSA Master contract.  The other issue was that we had nothing from GSA indicating that it had ever been approved for reimbursement and it should’ve been handled at the Master Contract level since it would affect every civilian agency.  There was resistance to this view by the new owner of our travel agency vendor, but in the end they left without us approving the new fee.  GSA eventually amended the Master Contract to include the fee at a later date, I believe, but it was not implemented at the Task Order level.  DOD had an entirely different Master Contract and the “new” fee had actually been negotiated in advance on their contract.

Anyone can obtain permission to read the GSA Master Contract/RFP online by requesting permission from the GSA travel acquisition office.  I strongly recommend that Government travel managers do so, or at the very least, sit down with their Contracting Officer and review it online with them to make sure that both parties have a good understanding of both the contracting and technical details.  This was only one example of a problem, and there will not doubt be many more in the course of these contracts.

by Julie Speers