About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-308010 1 (2007-04-20)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptauhu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: A G A O Comptroller General . Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Matter of: Department of Agriculture-Cooperative Agreement for Use of Aircraft File: B-308010 Date: April 20, 2007 DIGEST The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a division in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, did not violate the bona fide needs rule when it used fiscal year 2000 funds to facilitate purchase of an aircraft as part of a cooperative agreement. APHIS had the authority to enter into a cooperative agreement with Wyoming Woolgrowers Association (WWGA), but made the payments prior to a written cooperative agreement. We do not endorse APHIS's actions in expending federal funds prior to executing a cooperative agreement and remind APHIS of its duty to protect government funds from potential loss. DECISION The Inspector General (IG), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), asked whether expenditures of appropriated funds by the Wildlife Services (WS) program office of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated the bona fide needs rule. Letter from David R. Gray, Counsel to the Inspector General, USDA, to Anthony Gamboa, General Counsel, GAO, May 30, 2006 (Request Letter). In August and December 2000, APHIS made payments to an aircraft owner to facilitate a purchase agreement between the owner and an industry group, Wyoming Woolgrowers Association (WWGA). Id. In August 2000, WWGA purchased the aircraft in anticipation of entering into a cooperative agreement with APHIS for use of the aircraft by WS for its wildlife predation program. Id. For reasons explained below, APHIS did not violate the bonafide needs rule when it obligated and subsequently expended fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds to facilitate WWGA's purchase of the aircraft. The purchase agreement between WWGA and the aircraft owner credited a portion of APHIS's payment as reimbursements for past modifications to the aircraft in 1999, which the aircraft owner had made on his own initiative. While APHIS's payments reflected the costs the owner had incurred when he made the modifications, APHIS had neither instructed the owner to make