to date of such loss, if there be no official evidence to the contrary, and "* * Where such quarterly return has, from any cause, not been made, the accounting officers are authorized to adjust and settle such accounts on principles of equity and justice." The last quarterly return of the paymaster of the U. S. S. Lexington does not afford a basis for computing the pay of your son as his account was not carried by the paymaster of such vessel in his last quarterly return-having been then a member of Company D, Marine Barracks, Pearl Harbor, T. H. However, the return of the paymaster actually carrying his account similarly may be resorted to as a basis for settlement on principles of equity and justice.

The settlement of your claim in this case followed generally the rules indicated in decision of October 30, 1919, 26 Comp. Dec. 336, with respect to the settlement of the accounts of persons on the lost U. S. S. Cyclops. That decision is in part as follows:

The last quarterly return of the Cyclops was for the quarter ended September 30, 1917. That return is to.be taken as the basis of computation "if there be no official evidence to the. contrary." In authorizing subsequent credits, the law means credits to be paid, and necessarily requires taking the debits also as they appear in the last quarterly return “if there be no official evidence to the contrary.”

Allotments to be debited in the account to be stated will necessarily be such as the record shows as legally paid. Where the quarterly account shows drawings in cash without showing their application, and the records show for the period of the adjusted account an allotment paid, the drawings in cash to be debited in such adjusted account should be in the same percentage to the earnings therein after deduction of the allotment, as the drawing in cash represented to the earnings in the quarterly account. A cash balance from the previous quarter should not enter into the computation of the adjusted account but is to be added after debits and credits have been adjusted.

The Cyclops was never heard from after sailing March 4, 1918, from the Barbadoes for Baltimore. There were no reported survivors and the actual date the vessel and those on board were lost was never known. However, for the purpose of settling the accounts of Navy personnel on board pursuant to said section 287, Revised Statutes, the presumptive date of loss was fixed as March 31, 1918, and apparently, it was assumed that the crew was last paid to that date. But as Navy men generally may draw all, none, or any part of their accrued pay on pay day, there was no means of knowing what part of his pay each individual had drawn over the period since the last available record. In the absence of other fair basis for settlement it was assumed that each individual had drawn in cash over the period in question the same percentage of pay accruing over such period and available for withdrawal in cash as he had drawn in the last quarter for which records were available. While that rule for fixing the amount of pay drawn by a man over the period for which the account is to be settled appears generally fair and equitable and is for application in the absence of other evidence, there would appear to be no reason for assuming in cases like the pres

ent one, where the actual date of death is known, that the man was last paid to that date, where there may be evidence otherwise or better reason for assuming otherwise.

The following instructions are contained in Article 2161 of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts Manual respecting the payment of Navy enlisted personnel:

1. Authority for payments and amounts allowed.

(b) Each member of the crew and the Marine detachment of a ship, except such as may be in confinement as punishment, serving sentence, or awaiting trial, shall be allowed to draw twice a month (on approximately the 5th and 20th of the month) such money as he may have due him.

2. Semimonthly pay days.-Money shall be paid on the 5th and 20th of each month, unless those dates fall on Sunday or a legal holiday, or unless for any other reason it is not practicable to pay on these dates, in which cases it will be paid at such time as may be directed by the commanding officer.

In view of these instructions and the usual practice in that respect, it would seem reasonable to assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that a person serving on board a naval vessel on the fifth or twentieth of any month was last paid on that date to include the half month ending on the preceding thirtieth or fifteenth of a month, as the case might be, and where he died before the next succeeding fifth or twentieth, it would seem reasonable to assume that he had not again been paid or drawn any money and, therefore, that his account should be credited with full pay beginning with the first of the month when he died before the twentieth, and beginning with the sixteenth of the month when he died after the twentieth but before the fifth of the next month. In some cases, of course, although the pay records are lost, there may be statements of survivors or other evidence available as to when and to what date the personnel on the vessel were paid before such loss, which should be used as a basis for settlement rather than indulging a presumption that they were paid on the usual pay day. In the present case, a report dated February 18, 1943, from the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, Navy Department, is, in part, as follows:

In your letter of January 28, 1943, file B-31756, you request information as to whether, in the settlement of accounts of survivors of casualties to ships under authority of Section 11 of Public Law 490 of March 7, 1942, a determination has been made as to the date the enlisted men of the U. S. S. Lexington were last paid. The facts before the Navy Department concerning personnel of the Lexington Air Group, who were actually on board the ship on May 8, 1942, show that both officers and men of the Air Group were last paid on May 1, 1942 for pay and allowances which had accrued to April 30, 1942. This information was obtained from the current original money list salvaged by the disbursing officer, Ensign (now Lieutenant) C. M. Williams, SC-V (G), USNR. Further information has indicated that officers and enlisted men of the U. S. S. Lexington also were paid on the same date by Ensign R. H. Zwierschke, SC-V (G), USNR, deceased.

In view of this report and what has been said herein, the conclusion appears justified that your son had been last paid to include April 30,

1942, when he died on May 8, 1942. It is assumed that he did not draw any part of the balance remaining to his credit as of March 31, 1942, after being paid to include that date, or any part of the pay accruing for the period May 1 to May 8, 1942. The pay records for the quarter ending March 31, 1942, show that he drew 99 per centum of his pay for such period available for withdrawal in cash after the deduction of allotments, etc. Following the principles of the decision cited above, 26 Comp. Dec. 336, it is assumed that he drew the same proportion of his available pay for the period April 1 to 30, 1942.

Accordingly, you are advised that a supplementary settlement in your favor will issue in due course restating the account on the basis herein set forth.

(B-33662)

CONTRACTS-COST-PLUS-ADVERTISING AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCIDENT TO RECRUITING PERSONNEL

Under an architect-engineer contract requiring the contractor, in consideration of reimbursement for the "actual expenditures directly chargeable to the work" and of a stipulated fixed fee covering profit and general overhead expenses not expressly provided for otherwise, to prepare the necessary specifications, etc., for a certain construction project, and to furnish sufficient technical, etc., personnel to insure the prosecution of the work, expenditures by the contractor for advertising to procure such personnel and for their transportation expenses to the project site are considered as obligations of the contractor chargeable to the fixed fee and not as reimbursable items of cost, in the absence of a contract provision otherwise.

Comptroller General Warren to Col. F. Pearson, U. S. Army, April 30, 1943:

By 1st Indorsement dated March 10, 1943, the Chief of Finance forwarded here for consideration your letter of August 1, 1942, as follows:

1. The inclosed voucher of Charles De Leuw & Co., covering claim for reimbursement of transportation expenses of new employees from Chicago, Illinois to Sidney, Nebraska and expenses of advertising for personnel for work at the Sioux Ordnance Depot, Sidney, Nebraska, was submitted to the undersigned, who is a Disbursing Officer, and is forwarded for advance decision.

2. Reimbursement is claimed under Article III-E, paragraph 1, c of Contract No. W-643-eng-2528, which reads as follows:

"Reimbursement under this Article shall include all actual expenditures directly chargeable to the work and services provided herein performed at the ArchitectEngineer's home office, its field office, or elsewhere."

This office is in doubt as to whether or not this particular provision is applicable to the expenses involved. Contract contains no provision for reimbursement of expenses for procuring labor. It, therefore, appears that neither the cost of transportation nor expense of newspaper advertising is reimbursable.

3. Contractual provision pertaining to travel states that if the ArchitectEngineer or his representatives are required to travel, the cost of transportation and an allowance of $6.00 per day in lieu of all other expenses will be reimbursed. Contract also states that all travel shall be either authorized or approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. In this connection, attention is invited to the fact that several tickets were purchased prior to March 23, 1942, effective date of appointment of a Contracting Officer's Representative for the Sioux Ordnance Depot. A portion of the expense of newspaper advertising was also incurred prior to that date. Purchase Order No. 237 dated May 1, 1942, was issued as the

authority for incurring the transportation expenses and was later supplemented by a Travel Order dated May 18, 1942. Letters of the contractor stating the necessity for furnishing new employees' transportation to the project and incurring expenses of newspaper advertising, are attached to the inclosed voucher.

4. In the absence of proper contractual provision, this office is in doubt as to propriety of reimbursement of the claim submitted and advance decision is, therefore, requested.

In a letter dated May 18, 1942, to the Area Engineer, Sioux Ordnance Depot, Sidney, Nebraska, the contractor explains the necessity for incurring the involved expenses, as follows:

At the time Contract No. W 643 eng-2528 was negotiated, it was presumed that we would require many additional employees to execute this contract properly and complete within the allotted time.

The work for this contract is located at or near Sidney, Nebraska, a town of approximately 3,300 population. A thorough investigation revealed that it would be impossible to secure all the necessary help at or near the site of the project. We therefore made arrangements to hire this personnel through our home office, located in Chicago, Illinois.

We were fortunate in obtaining sufficient help to enable us to start operations. However, our contract covered a period of only sixty days, and because of this short period of time involved, the 35 individuals listed on the attached invoice could not leave their homes in Chicago to travel to Nebraska, their opinion being that it would be economically unsound from their standpoints. As a matter of fact, most of these people would not have had sufficient ready cash to make this trip. As a result, and acting in good faith, the Chicago office of Charles De Leuw & Company hired these people in Chicago and purchased the necessary railroad transportation, with Pullman, to enable these people to reach the project and report for duty.

As stated above, the amount of $1,275.20 shown on the attached invoice, was paid by Charles De Leuw & Company in good faith, and in our judgment was a necessary expenditure in connection with the proper execution and completion of Contract No. W 643 eng-2528. We therefore request a pre-audit approval of this $1,275.20, to the end that we may receive reimbursement therefor.

Also, by a letter dated May 19, 1942, the contractor advised the Area Engineer, as follows:

At the time Contract No. W 643 eng-2528 was signed, we were issued verbal instructions to proceed at once to Sidney, Nebraska and begin operations. According to the terms of the Contract, Title I was to have been completed in sixty days. It was necessary that we employ many additional persons in order to complete a project of this magnitude in such a short time.

We contacted Mr. Russel Hand, manager of the United States Employment Service, in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, which was the nearest office to the site of the work. He was able to furnish us some help, but the highly technical men required were not available through this source.

The policy of Charles De Leuw & Company, when in need of technical help of this nature, has been to advertise in the newspaper and then interview the applicants to determine if they have the necessary qualifications. Inasmuch as we were unable to secure the needed help by other means, we placed advertisements in newspapers in the Chicago area, and the results obtained were highly satisfactory. However, we soon exhausted the available supply from that source, and our vice-president, Mr. L. H. Cather, then made a trip to Denver, Colorado, and placed an ad in the Denver Post. Through this latter medium we were able to obtain sufficient personnel.

In our judgment these items of expense, as shown on the attached invoice, were just as necessary for the efficient execution and completion of our contract as any other obligation we have incurred. We therefore are issuing our check covering this expense, payable to our Chicago office, and we hereby request reimbursement.

With respect to the matter set forth in your letter, there are f noting the 4th and 6th Indorsements, respectively, as follows:

4th Ind.

U. S. ENGR. OFFICE, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska, November 4, 1942. TO: Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, War Department, Washington, D. C., through the Division Engineer, Missouri River Division, Omaha, Nebraska.

In view of the data set forth in letters transmitted herewith concerning availablity of employees to the Architect-Engineer for work at Sioux Ordnance Depot, Sidney, Nebraska, it is the opinion of this office that employees can not be procured by Charles De Leuw & Company for work on said project without paying transportation of the new employees to the project and advertising for personnel in order to render efficient prosecution of the work.

For the District Engineer:

[S] R. H. WIETHOP,
R. H. Wiethop,

1st Lt., Corps of Engineers,
Executive Assistant.

6th Ind.

Office, C. of E., February 15, 1943.

To; Services of Supply, Office Chief of Finance.

1. This office recommends allowance of the subject claim.

2. Although the contract does not expressly provide reimbursement for expenses of advertising for and transportation of necessary field forces to the site of the work, it is implicit in a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract that, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, such costs are reimbursable as are found by the Contracting Officer to be directly attributable to the efficient prosecution of the work. The Contracting Officer has found (see 4th Ind.) that the efficient procurement of personnel required advertisement for and transportation of employees. Although the cost of travel of a new employee from his home city to the site of the work is normally borne by the employee, in some cases it is necessary either to pay a higher wage at the site of the work than at the employee's home city or to pay his travel expenses. The Contracting Officer has the duty of procuring personnel in a manner most beneficial to the interest of the Government. Accordingly, it was within the scope of his duties to approve the expenditures for which reimbursement is here sought. The provision in the contract that "The Architect-Engineer shall furnish sufficient technical, supervisory and administrative personnel * * *" does not conflict with this conclusion since the wages of such personnel as are not included in "overhead" are reimbursable items. (See Article III-E, Section 1 a. of contract.)

For the Chief of Engineers:

[S] O. P. EASTERWOOD, Jr.,

O. P. Easterwood, Jr.,
Captain, Corps of Engineers,

Assistant; Contracts and Claims Branch,

Administrative Division.

However, there is for noting, also, the 5th Indorsement which reads as follows:

5th Ind.

Office, Div. Engr., MRD, Omaha, Nebr., Nov. 6, 1942.

To: Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, War Dept., Washington, D. C.
Attention: Labor Relations Branch.

1. The division Engineer recommends disallowance of the claim of the ArchitectEngineer for reimbursement.

2. The Division Engineer concurs in statement of the District Engineer contained in preceding indorsement that these expenditures on the part of the contractor were necessary; however, it is considered that these items are nonreimbursable, inasmuch as the terms of CPFF contracts place full responsibility for the procurement of all personnel required for the completion of the work on the contractor, in Paragraph 2 of Article III-L (Progress Reports and Changes in Personnel)—

"The Architect Engineer shall furnish sufficient technical, supervisory and administrative personnel to insure the prosecution of the work in accordance with the approved progress schedule. If, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer,