Kahn’s overseas travel orders included a per diem rate of $190 for lodging in New Delhi based upon GSA per diem rates.  Upon arriving in New Delhi, Kahn secured a room for $100 per night, which represented the hotel’s government employee rate but he found the room unsatisfactory so he obtained another for $190, reasoning he was covered since the maximum limitation of $190 was not exceeded.  Kahn’s agency limited his reimbursement to $100 per night asserting the “better” room was not necessary for performance of his duties and that changing rooms for an extra $90 per night violated the “prudent person rule.”  The Appeals Board sided with Kahn saying (1) the prudent person rule was not violated because the cheaper room probably “left much to be desired” and hence a private party traveling on personal business would likely take similar action (2) since Kahn was authorized to spend up to $190 per night whether Kahn used some or all of that per diem was up to his discretion and (3) refusal to pay Kahn represented an unauthorized reduction of prescribed maximum per diem lodging, violating FTR 301-11.200 (GSBCA 16356-TRAV).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}