B-316372, Denali Commission--Overobligation of Apportionment, October 21, 2008
![[Select for PDF file]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081210211243im_/http://www.gao.gov/graphics/pdf.gif)
Decision
Matter of: Denali Commission—Overobligation of Apportionment
DIGEST
The Denali Commission incurred
an obligation for the amount of a grant to the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
when it transmitted its
Financial Assistance Award to the
Alaska Department on
DECISION
The Inspector General of the Denali Commission has
requested our decision on whether the Commission violated the Antideficiency
Act (Act) in December 2005 when it recorded an obligation of $400,000 for a
grant to the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development. Letter from Mike Marsh,
Inspector General, Denali Commission, to Susan Poling, Managing Associate
General Counsel, GAO, Mar. 12, 2008 (Request Letter). As explained below, the Commission incurred
an obligation for the grant on
Our usual practice when rendering decisions is to request
the views of the relevant federal agency to establish a factual record and to
elicit the agency’s legal position on the subject matter of the request. GAO, Procedures
and Practices for Legal Decisions and Opinions, GAO-06-1064SP (
BACKGROUND
Congress established the Denali Commission (Commission) in the Denali Commission Act of 1998. Pub. L. No. 105-277, sections 301–308, 112 Stat. 2681-637 to 2681-641 (Oct. 21, 1998). The Commission operates exclusively in, and for the benefit of, the state of Alaska and has three purposes. One is to deliver federal services in the most cost-effective manner by reducing administrative and overhead costs. Another is to provide training and economic development services in rural communities. The third purpose is to provide infrastructure needs such as power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems. Id. sect. 302. The Commission is composed of seven members, who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. Six members are Alaskans, including the Governor of Alaska (or her nominee), who serves as the State Cochairperson. The seventh member is a federal official, who serves as the Federal Cochairperson. Id sect. 303. One way in which the Commission carries out its mission is to make grants to Alaska state departments to implement specific projects. Request Letter.
On
In September 2006, when the Commission submitted its
fiscal year 2007 apportionment request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for that appropriation, OMB advised the Commission that it may have
violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA) [2]
because, in December 2005, when the Commission recorded the obligation against the
appropriation, the Commission had an apportionment of only $164,480.[3] Subsequently, the Commission adjusted its
accounts to record the obligation against no-year appropriations for which it
had an apportionment. E-mail from
Corrine Eilo, Director of Administration,
DISCUSSION
The question the Inspector General posed is whether the Commission violated the Antideficiency Act when it recorded an obligation in December 2005 for $400,000 against the 3-year appropriation for which it had only $164,480 apportioned. As posed, the answer would be yes. If an agency overobligates its apportionment, even though there may be an adequate appropriation, the agency violates the Antideficiency Act. 31 U.S.C. sect. 1517(a)(1). However, in examining the facts here, as explained below, the Commission incurred the obligation not in December, but in August 2005, when it first transmitted the Grant Award to the Alaska Department. At that time, the Commission had sufficient funds apportioned in a no-year account to cover the obligation.[4] The no-year account was the account to which the Commission ultimately charged the grant obligation after adjusting accounts in September 2006. Eilo E-mail.
An agency incurs an obligation when it makes a definite
commitment that creates a legal liability on the part of the government or takes
an action that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the
part of the other party beyond the control of the
In
B-126652,
“This approval and award of grant . . . shall constitute an obligation to make such grant. Such obligation may be terminated without further cause, however, if the grantee shall fail to affirm its timely utilization of the grant by signing and returning to the Economic Development Administration within 30 days its affirmation of intent as set forth below.”
B-126652, at 2 (emphasis added). With this language, EDA incurred an obligation because EDA accepted the grant application, specified the project approved and the amount of funding, and imposed a timeframe for affirmation by the grantee.
The language in the Denali Financial Assistance Award has
the same key terms upon which we based our conclusion that the EDA Offer of
Grant established an obligation. Like
the EDA Offer,
“This Financial Assistance Award . . . constitutes an obligation of federal funding. By signing . . ., the Recipient agrees to comply with the Award provisions indicated below and attached. . . . If not signed and returned without modification by the Recipient within 30 days of receipt, the Federal Co-Chair may unilaterally terminate this Award.”
Award No. 194-05, at 2 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Commission incurred a $400,000 obligation
on
On
According to the Commission, in August 2005, it had three appropriations
available to it. In the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Congress appropriated $67,000,000 to
the Commission for its expenses for fiscal year 2005, providing that $2,500,000
of that amount was to remain available until expended. Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. at 2961. Congress also appropriated $1,300,000 of 3‑year
funds available until
The Commission should examine its policies and procedures
to ensure that it is recording its grant obligations properly, in accordance
with 31 U.S.C. sect. 1501, and that it has appropriate controls in place to ensure
that it has an apportionment at the time of obligation. Without appropriate controls, the Commission
has no assurance that it complied with the Antideficiency Act as it incurred
grant obligations. When the Commission
adjusts its records to reflect this obligation as of
CONCLUSION
When the Denali Commission incurred an obligation on
![Gary L. Kepplinger's signature](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081210211243im_/http://www.gao.gov/images/kepplingergsig.gif)
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1]
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3300, 3302
(
[2] See SF 132 Apportionment and Reapportionment
Schedule, Appropriation Account 9505071200, signed by OMB
[3]
[4] See SF 132 Apportionment and
Reapportionment Schedule, Appropriation Account 95X1200, signed by OMB
[5] Of course, after the expiration of the 30-day deadline for affirmation of the grant, the Co-Chair may terminate the award and deobligate the funds.
[6]
Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. at 3302.
See note 1 above.
[7] When the Commission adjusted its accounts in 2006 in response to OMB’s query regarding its available apportionment, it charged the $400,000 obligation to the no-year appropriation. Eilo E-mail.