DCBob

The federal government does not regulate hotel rates or to whom the hotel can offer discounted government rates. If it did, it would require government rates be offered to all federal employees at all times and at rates no higher than the official per diem rate.

ohmark

Checked into my second fs property this week at the government rate. Neither one of them requested my ID. Very disappointing.

Copilot23

My guess it will be inconsistent and when convenient for the property. If a hotel is below 100% occupancy then they may not ask, but if it is sold-out or oversold, they may ask and require the higher rate or the user to choose to walk.

TrojanHorse

Isn't this often the case; its if they need you; they conveniently forget to ask; if they don't; they put you through the wringer even if they know you are a fed

flyingcat2k

Zipadee: You will not qualify for any government rate overseas without showing military orders and military ID or showing whatever the US State Department uses for it's employees. (The Germans, in particular, are Uberstrict about this). Local governments rarely have business overseas unless it is a major city like NYC or LA. State governments are getting more involved in international relations but unless you are the Governor or a member of the cabinet, they probably will laugh and say no.

As a Federal Contractor, I have to say that this entirely shifts our project travel costs. Marriott just lost most of our business to Hilton, Holiday Inn/Intercontinental and whatever major chains we can find. I'm just hoping not to get stuck in billeting for weeks on end.

hnewman

I hope Marriott gets a clue very soon. I supect this policy was based on abuse, but the pendulum never stops in the middle in this country that wild swings right to left and left to right

fiedler77

I just called the Plat number and got transfered to customer service to file a complaint. (She said they have a code for this particular complaint, so it didn't take long). I also informed her that I (and 2 other plats I work with) will not be able to stay at Marriott's on business any longer because of this. Which is sad, since I've really enjoyed Marriott and the service I've received.

The reasoning she used was a bit weird - that since contractors are paid more, they can afford more in lodging costs. Except for the fact that my travel costs are _directly_ reimbursed by the government, so I must stay in per diem while on official travel.

jon

hnewman

Same with me. I tried explaining it to them. They do not get it or do not want to get it.

craz

I could be wrong but I feel that Marriott wont care if X amount of people wont be able to book with them any longer. Why? cause they feel in lieu of all these so called Govt Rate people, they will be able to sell the same room for alot more $$$ to reg people.

The only way Marriott does an about-face via Govt rates is if across the board they see not only that the % of rooms booked at Govt rates fell way down , BUT at the same time the rooms didnt get filled by others at the higher rates. So if the # of rooms/nights for Govt rates falls but the Occupancy % of the Hotels either doesnt fall or not by much, that means they will be ahead of the game since they will be making more $$$, and highly doubtful if they backtrack on the new policy for Govt Rates.

coconuthalves

On the sidelines but had to post something...


Sorry if this is showing up twice - new at this and screwed up

Federal Employee here and I haven't been carded yet either since the "letter" came (but that's not what I'm posting about)

For every platinum contractor that is complaining about this there are 20 "gold" federal employees like me applauding... (I'm in awe that you all got the per diem enough to move up the ladder like that)


IMHO Marriott is not doing this to sell fewer per diem rooms; heck they could have done that at any time. Any business would stop selling discounts if it were that more people were waiting in line to buy at a higher price. I think they are doing what lots of businesses are doing these days and trying to segment their business and get their arms around it....

Maybe other stuff but, if it was just about chasing away low rated business why make a big deal about it and send letters and press releases and LOWER the rate to the per diem rate (it used to be too high for me to book in a lot of places - it was some frickin made up rate - if you want to talk about pissing off federal travelers!!!!). There is something more to it than that because they are wooing me and my federal colleagues...

Maybe there is some darker underlying agenda but IF its the truth, I'm sure ok with it...

ohmark

[QUOTE=coconuthalves;7428086] There is something more to it than that because they are wooing me and my federal colleagues...
QUOTE]

Welcome to Flyertalk. Here's my guess as to what may be involved. I think, at least in part, this new initiative by Marriott may have been prompted by GSA's fedrooms program. The Fedrooms program guarantees that the room rate will never be higher than per diem. I have noticed that virtually all the major chains are represented in Fedrooms, but I have not seen a single Marriott property in the program. I also noticed that Socrates (our unofficial insider here) has posted in this thread to the effect that under Fedrooms a property charging a per diem rate actually ends up with revenue lower than per diem (presumably after some type of payment to Fedrooms?). I believe Carlson Wagonlit operates Fedrooms.

So, I'm guessing that this new initiative may be, at least in part, geared to assuring federal employees a per diem rate like Fedrooms, but also insuring that Marriott properties don't have to share revenue with Fedrooms. Just a guess. Any comment, Socrates?

aaupgrade

I moved up the ladder by paying $200-300 personal stays for the most part. However I do have a small portion of my business that involves business travel on behalf of government clients and in those cases I will not able to stay at my favorite hotel as a result of this policy. Both you and I in those instances are supposed to use government per diem rates and are no different with regard to the requirements set down by our employer (the government). In Marriott's eyes they have turned their back on us. So they are providing rooms to those that ALWAYS pay the low government per diem, and rejecting those that sometimes require the low per diem but regularly pay higher rates. I am sure they will miss losing my 80 x $259 and 20 x $119 a bit more than having your 100 x $119. Obviously someone at Marriott is not playing with a full deck.

Yeah, but segmenting their business and alienating customers who pay high dollar most of the time is not a good business model IMO.

It was probably done due to complaints about the non-per diem rates. I think Marriott should provide per diem rates so we agree there. I think excluding contractors is just plain wrong both from an ethical and PR standpoint, and extremely short sighted from a business perspective.

To put it in another perspective, let's say you and 7 colleagues were going to a meeting in LA and 4 of you are government employees and the other 4 are government contractors. All of you had been working together on the same defense contract for a couple years and were loyal MR members of similar standing. You and your government employee colleagues check into the LAX Renaissance Montura and the government contractors now have to go find the hotel that allows them to use the government per diem so they check into the LAX Westin. So now you are a couple miles from each other and can't use the concierge lounge for your after work meetings (I just couldn't resist). @:-) Eureka, Marriott has instituted this new government rate policy to reduce the government employee and contractor meetings that were occurring in the CL. Anyway hopefully that illustration highlights just one of the problems that occur with this new policy. (BTW - This specific problem was discussed with me by a military friend of mine who goes to LA for just such meetings on a regular basis. FWIW he thinks the exclusion of contractors is misguided).

TrojanHorse

To shoot a little hole into this theory; The FAR (Fed Acq Register) would allow the contractor to stay at the same property if required by the customer or if the contractor could provide a causal benefit to being at this particular property with the customer at 300% above PER DIEM (lodging only not M&IE is my understanding of this). Lets say you are in Los angeles (110 lodging PD) - The contractor in this instance below could claim $330 plus tax back to the customer either as a direct charge (unless specifically forbidden in contract T&C's) or back through their indirect cost claim.

aaupgrade

Thanks for the insight. Perhaps my friend was unaware of that aspect of the FAR since he is not the contractor. Although he better become aware of it since he will be retiring later this year and will be migrating to the other side once he jumps through all the ethics hoops. Now as a tax payer I have a different view, but that is a discussion for OMNI. BTW, $330 is more than enough allowance for the Ren Montura.

In my case I don't know if that would work since governemnt contracts where I use lodging include Police Departments and State agencies and as such don't come under the FAR TTBOMK. I have federal clients, but since I live in the DC suburbs I don't need lodging for my visits to them.

coconuthalves

Thanks for the welcome and for being kind and balanced. Franky, I expected to get a bit hammered for being remedial.

I actually don't think our travel is too much diff as I have spent 4 nights from my pocket (with Marriott) already and am about to spend six more in April - two rooms each time. I expect I might be plat this year but am not sure how many of my "middle income peers" have similar travel patterns. I DO know that a lot of the "power travelers" I work with seem to vacation in some pretty nice places by my standards...(not sure if that is on Marriott or not but somebodies points are usually in play)

As far as the Fedrooms thing - wow, I don't know anybody who uses that - I have peeked a few times but the pickin's was slim. I will look again.

I don't think I have much to add to the dialogue on the radical difference between federal employee and contractor travel since they are touched on above but it really is a different animal... I am surrounded daily by contractors who travel a bunch and I happen to live in a place where my neighbors are involved with any number of Fed Contracts ..(well except the neighbor on the left who has been playing tennis daily fort 10 years and I have NO CLUE what he did or does)...None of them seem to have as much angst about the cost of a room as I do and I am pretty aware that they often pay way more than the per diem (not that this is anything close to a regular discussion - and no, I am not as well versed as the rest of you all)

Anyway, maybe they eat the cost themselves but more likely they expense it and/or have balanced it against the rules you all note. For my part, I don't even bother trying to get an exception as it is easier to sever a limb.

I suppose you are right, if this whole thing causes enough anger and resentment and Marriott starts losing group business or tons of contractor stays or gathers up a whole bunch of ill will or bad press (I actually somehow got to this forum by "googling" marriott and per diem) that admins and the like will stop booking meetings and such... not smart enough to know that- my wife does some meeting arranging for Lockheed and she draws no linkeage when booking groups. But I have this really narrow view sooooo

Thanks, I will keep checking back since there are some good tips on how to leverage my points and all...

Sun is shining and temps in the 50's and home with the coughing 9 year old... life is good