acter of the work to be done, or the time required for its performance, it is provided that an equitable adjustment will be made in the amount otherwise payable under the contract. The manner or procedure for effecting such equitable adjustment is prescribed. The net effect of the provision is to impose upon the contractor an obligation to make such changes as the Government may order and upon the Government an obligation to pay for changes involving an increase in the burden or expense of the contract performance.

In McCord v. United States, 9 C. Cls. 155, 168, 169, the court, with respect to a similar provision in a Government contract, stated:

The contract for the construction of the Etlah provided that alterations might be made from the original specifications, and that, if they caused extra expense, that should be paid for; and if they effected a reduction of the cost, that should be subtracted from the contract price.

This privilege of the United States to make alterations on the terms stated being expressly provided for in the contract, the contract price related to that privilege as much as to any other provision in the contract, and therefore it must be taken as included in that price, and paid for in it. *

In other words, the provision regarding changes in the subject contract is as much an integral part of the agreement between the parties as any other part thereof; and, therefore, the obligations imposed upon the parties by such provision date from the execution of the contract. Compare Plack v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 641.

It is true that at the time the contract was executed it was not known that there would, in fact, be any changes ordered under said article 2 for which the contractor would be entitled to be paid an amount in addition to amounts otherwise payable under the contract. Also, it is true that said article 2 contemplates the execution of amendments to the contract from time to time covering such changes. However, the fact remains that the obligations and liabilities of the parties respecting such changes are fixed by the terms of the original contract, and the various amendments merely render definite and liquidated the extent of the Government's liability in connection with such changes.

Moreover, the original assignment was made pursuant to the Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, which act is an amendment to prior statutes prohibiting the assignment of claims against the United States. The prior statutes were enacted for the protection of the Government and in order that it might not become embroiled in conflicting claims with consequent delay and embarrassment and the chance of multiple liability. See Martin v. National Surety Co., 300 U. S. 588, 594; United States v. Certain Lands in Town of Highlands, N. Y., 49 F. Supp. 962, 965. The Congress relaxed these statutory prohibitions in order to aid in financing the national defense program but at the same time evidenced its continued regard for the basic purposes of the prior legislation by defining with caution and particularity the requirements for a valid assignment under the As

signment of Claims Act. Consideration for these purposes affords guidance in the instant matter. If each amendment covering an authorized contract change were for consideration as a separate and distinct contract, such as to require the execution of a specific assignment of amounts payable thereunder, the absence of an assignment for any such amendment-or an assignment to other than the original assignee-would occasion the very difficulties and confusion which the Congress attempted to avert. Thus, the statutory permission to assign "moneys due or to become due" under a public contract, as well as the statutory mandate that such assignments cover "all amounts payable under such contract", requires a construction which will accord with the purposes of the statute.

Accordingly, I have to advise that under the circumstances outlined in your letter and otherwise appearing of record here, all payments under contract NOrd-3897 should be made to Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., including amounts payable for work done by the contractor under change orders issued pursuant to article 2 of the contract, regardless of whether amounts payable for such changes have been the subject of a separate assignment from the contractor to the bank, unless and until a duly executed release of the assignment by the assignee has been filed with the proper officers. See, in this latter connection, 22 Comp. Gen. 520, 525, 526. Also, in view of the fact that separate assignments of amounts due under such change orders are not required under the Assignment of Claims Act, the provisions of Treasury Circular Letter No. 447 would appear to have no application thereto; and notices and copies of such assignments are not required by law to be acknowledged.

(B-42031)

TRAVELING EXPENSES-FARES-ROUND-TRIP-ROUTE CHANGES DURING TRAVEL

The practicability and economy of purchasing a round-trip ticket, as required by paragraph 16 of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, is to be judged as of the route contemplated at the time the traveler leaves his headquarters and not by changes in his routing which may be made before his return, and, therefore, where a round-trip rate was not available over the traveler's contemplated route, the fact that, due to changes in itinerary during the travel, he actually returned by a route over which a round-trip rate would have been available does not obligate him for the difference between the costs of the one one-way tickets used and the round-trip rate. Comptroller General Warren to Robert J. Albers, Department of Agriculture, June 12, 1944:

There has been considered your letter of May 12, 1944, as follows:

In accordance with the provisions of Public 389, 77th Congress, there is transmitted herewith for an advance decision Bureau Voucher No. 18663 in favor of Mr. Victor B. Fredenhagen in the amount of $81.78. Attached to the voucher is a statement from the traveler with respect to the use of one way tickets over a

portion of the journey whereas it would have been more economical to have secured a round trip ticket.

On the basis of previous decisions of your office it appears to be intended that round trip tickets required to be secured under par. 16 of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations where practicable and economical are mandatory in that a procedure is established (par. 32 Standardized Government Travel Regulations) for the redemption of the tickets in the event the return portion is not used. However it does appear in the consideration of many cases there was a contemplated return by the traveler to his official station from the destination over approximately the same route or by other transportation facilities at no additional cost to the Government, at the time he departed from his headquarters. Such circumstances are not analogous to the one here presented since the traveler had an itinerary established at the time he departed from headquarters which did not contemplate that he return to headquarters over the same route. It later developed that he would return by the same route upon advice from his superior officers after visiting numerous points in the field. Also reference is made to your decision B-35827 dated August 25, 1943 quoted in part as follows:

"While an employee is required under par. 9 and 16, Standardized Government Travel Regulations to travel by the most economical usually traveled route and to procure reduced rate round trip tickets whenever practicable and economical it has not been the practice in this office in the audit of accounts to hold a traveler to a round trip rate for travel to an intermediate point where no duty is to be performed."

Due to the requirement that in many cases a traveler will be held responsible for not securing reduced rate round trip tickets, under circumstances similar to those prevailing here, many of our employees actually secure round trip tickets when it is not presumed at departure from headquarters that any travel will be performed on the return portion because they wish to preclude a charge against them for failure to secure round trip tickets in the event they are subsequently returned to the original route. This practice creates in this office a large number of unused return portions of tickets submitted by travelers for redemption for which adjustments are necessary with the carriers in the settlement of their accounts. If it is your decision that circumstances in connection with the attached voucher does not require that round trip tickets be secured, it is believed that the necessity for many of these adjustments may be avoided.

Your decision is kindly requested as to whether or not the enclosed voucher may be certified for payment without holding the traveler responsible for the difference between the one way tickets actually used and the value of a round trip ticket.

It appears from the submitted voucher that the employee purchased one-way tickets between Lincoln, Nebraska, Woolsey, Hecla, Aberdeen, Chamberlain, Woolsey, Omaha, and Lincoln; and in explanation of the failure to purchase round-trip tickets he states in a memorandum of April 29, 1944, as follows:

Reference is made to my travel voucher covering the period from April 10 to April 26.

The trip was planned to follow the prearranged Zone Technicians' schedule as outlined for the period February 28 to June 30.

This schedule provided for a visit to Huron, Hecla, Watertown, and Brookings, South Dakota, with intermediate stops. The return trip from Brookings to Omaha is made over the C. & N. W. Railroad.

At Hecla I received a wire from Mr. Davies, approved by Mr. Allred, that I change my schedule and go to Chamberlain. It was also decided that I go again to Miller on April 24 and 25 which precluded the visit to Brookings.

This change in schedule made it necessary for me to take the C. M. St. P. Railroad at Woolsey for the return trip to Omaha and Lincoln which retraced the route over which I reached the Huron Work Group.

Since the change in schedule was not foreseen and it was not of my own choosing, one-way tickets were purchased for the trip as shown.

The schedules on file in this office confirm the traveler's statement that a round-trip ticket was not available over the route contemplated,

involving return from Brookings, South Dakota, when he started his trip from Lincoln. Accordingly, he was under no requirement to purchase a round-trip ticket by some other route on the chance that his route might be changed to enable him to make use of the round-trip ticket. The practicability and economy of purchasing a round-trip ticket is to be judged as of the route contemplated at the time the traveler leaves his headquarters and not by changes in his routing which may be made before his return.

The voucher is returned herewith, and if otherwise correct same may be processed for payment.

(B-40691)

PAY-AVIATION DUTY-FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS TO CAPTURED PERSONNEL SUBSEQUENTLY ESCAPING; ETC.

The three calendar months' period prescribed by paragraph 10 of Executive Order No. 9195 in which flight requirements may be made up, in order to be entitled to aviation pay, commences in the month in which the deficiency or failure to qualify arises.

When there is a failure during one calendar month to meet the flight requirements set forth in paragraph 10 of Executive Order No. 9195 in order to be entitled to aviation pay, the provisions of subparagraphs (b) and (c) thereof with respect to making up flight deficiencies do not extend beyond the termination of the two calendar months next succeeding the month in which the deficiency occurs.

Where for four or more consecutive months there is a failure to meet the flight requirements set forth in paragraph 10 of Executive Order No. 9195 in order to be entitled to aviation pay, a new three calendar months' period, within which flight requirements may be made up under said Executive order, does not commence with the fourth month and the flight requirements for that month may not be made up in a second or third month thereafter; the new three-month period begins with the month in which the minimum flight requirements are met.

The provisions of section 2 of the missing persons statute of March 7, 1942, pertaining to the continuance of the pay and allowances of persons missing, captured by the enemy, etc., have reference to pay and allowances "while so absent," and have no application to the rights of such persons after termination of the missing status, so that the question of whether an Army flying officer who escaped after having been captured by the enemy is entitled to aviation pay for a period after his escape is for determination solely under the provisions of Executive Order No. 9195 with respect to flight requirements, etc.

Under the rule that the three calendar months' period prescribed by Executive Order No. 9195 in which flight requirements may be made up, in order to be entitled to aviation pay for that period, commences in the month in which the deficiency or failure to qualify arises, where an Army flying officer was captured by the enemy, after having met the flight requirements for the month of capture, and subsequently escaped, such three-month period commences with the first month after capture in which no flights were performed-insofar as concerns his rights after termination of his captured status, when the pay-continuance provisions of the act of March 7, 1942, cease to apply.

Where an Army flying officer who was captured by the enemy and subsequently escaped performed no flights after his capture until the fifth month following that of his capture and the third month following that in which he escaped, he has not met the requirements of paragraph 10 of Executive Order No. 9195 with respect to making up flight deficiencies within a three calendar months' period so as to be entitled to aviation pay for any of the period

between the date of his escape and the beginning of the month in which he performed the necessary flights.

Assistant Comptroller General Yates to Lt. Carl A. Nelson, U. S. Army, June 13, 1944:

By endorsement dated March 4, 1944, there was received your letter requesting decision whether you are authorized to make payment on a voucher submitted therewith in favor of Major Kelly W. Mitchim, Air Corps Reserve, covering aviation pay for the period October 21 to December 31, 1943.

In a certificate executed January 27, 1944, at Randolph Field, Texas, the officer states:

While operating in an authorized combat mission over Italy on 26 August, 1943, I was shot down by enemy aircraft and captured by belligerent Italian armed forces and placed in an Italian prisoner-internment camp on the same date. (Upon surrender of Italy, the internment camp was taken over by the German forces.)

After escaping from the camp on 20 October, I reported to a unit of the Royal Canadian forces and was evacuated back to American forces, and on 24 October, I was admitted to a base hospital at Tunis, North Africa. After being released from the hospital on 29 October, 1943, I remained in Tunis until competent secret orders transferred me to Algiers, North Africa, where I remained until further orders sent me to the Port of Debarkation, Miami, Florida, arriving at the latter station on 9 November, 1943. From that station, I was transferred 1 Headquarters, AAF Redistribution Station #2, Miami Beach, Florida, with 25 days delay en route, and then sent to AAF Flying Training Command, Ft. Worth, Texas, with further orders to report to AAF Central Instructors School, Randolph Field, Texas, after 5 days delay en route.

The enclosures submitted with the voucher further indicate that by Personnel Orders No. 298 dated December 20, 1940, the officer was assigned to duty requiring participation in regular and frequent aerial flights for an indefinite period. It is stated that the officer was a prisoner of war from August 26 to October 20, 1943, and has been paid aviation pay for that period although he performed no flights, and that the first flights in which he participated after his escape were performed during the period January 17 to 28, 1944, in which period he was credited with 20 flights totaling 13 hours and 10 minutes. Your doubt in the matter is whether aerial flights performed by the officer in January, 1944, may be regarded as having been made in accordance with section 10 of Executive Order No. 9195, so as to entitle him to aviation pay for the period here involved.

The first paragraph of section 18 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, approved June 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 368, effective as of June 1, 1942, provides:

Officers, warrant officers, nurses, and enlisted men of any of the services mentioned in the title of this Act and members of the Reserve forces of such services, and the National Guard shall receive an increase of 50 per centum of their pay when by orders of competent authority they are required to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights, and when in consequence of such orders they do participate in regular and frequent flights as defined by such Executive orders as have heretofore been, or may hereafter be, promulgated by the President: Regulations in execution of the provisions of this paragraph shall be made by the President and shall, whenever practicable in his judgment, be uniform for all of the services concerned.

* * *