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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-333508 Sep 07, 2023 1 (2023-09-07)

handle is hein.gao/gaopcw0001 and id is 1 raw text is: O U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Decision Matter of: Architect of the Capitol-Purchase and Use of Motor Vehicles File: B-333508 Date: September 7, 2023 DIGEST The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) obligated $49,033.64 against its Capital Construction and Operations appropriation for the purchase of a passenger motor vehicle for the then-Architect's use. AOC also obligated $37,458.74 against its Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds and Security appropriation for the purchase and installation of emergency vehicle lighting, communications equipment, and a customized seating arrangement in the vehicle. Under 31 U.S.C. § 1343(b), an agency may expend an appropriation to buy or lease a passenger motor vehicle only for the use of specified individuals or as specifically provided by law. While AOC had authority to purchase a passenger motor vehicle under this provision, we conclude that AOC violated a statutory price limitation on such a purchase. Because AOC exceeded the amount available for the purchase of a passenger motor vehicle, we also find that AOC violated the Antideficiency Act. AOC did not violate the purpose statute, however, when it obligated appropriations to purchase and install emergency vehicle lighting, communications equipment, and seating equipment in the vehicle. AOC also obligated appropriations for expenses associated with the then-Architect's use of AOC vehicles to travel between his residence and place of work, incidental stops along his commute, and general family use including weekend trips to a craft brewery and out-of-town trips. The then-Architect had discretion to determine that agency appropriations were available for his use of AOC vehicles to carry out his statutory duties, provided that he properly determined that such use was necessary to carry out the emergency functions vested in him by law. However, such discretion is not unlimited. Appropriations are not available for personal expenses that lack any relationship to government business. Thus, AOC violated the purpose statute when it obligated appropriations for expenses associated with the use of AOC motor vehicles by the then-Architect's family members.