A-16072, NOVEMBER 12, 1926, 6 COMP. GEN. 329

A-16072: Nov 12, 1926

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

GENERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE - OPEN-MARKET PURCHASES WHERE AN ARTICLE SCHEDULED BY THE GENERAL SUPPLY COMMITTEE WAS PURCHASED IN OPEN MARKET BY A FIELD SERVICE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THERE APPEARS NO SHOWING SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT AN EXIGENCY EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MET BY PURCHASE FROM THE REGULAR CONTRACTOR. THE TRANSACTION WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 17. WHEREIN CREDIT FOR $7.86 WAS DISALLOWED IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH SUCH STAMPS COULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE GENERAL SUPPLY COMMITTEE CONTRACT. I BEG TO ADVISE THAT THESE STAMPS WERE PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROPER CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE OFFICE TO HAVE THE STAMPS COVERED BY THIS VOUCHER.

A-16072, NOVEMBER 12, 1926, 6 COMP. GEN. 329

GENERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE - OPEN-MARKET PURCHASES WHERE AN ARTICLE SCHEDULED BY THE GENERAL SUPPLY COMMITTEE WAS PURCHASED IN OPEN MARKET BY A FIELD SERVICE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THERE APPEARS NO SHOWING SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT AN EXIGENCY EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MET BY PURCHASE FROM THE REGULAR CONTRACTOR, THE TRANSACTION WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 17, 1910, 36 STAT. 531, WHICH PROVIDES THE PROCEDURE FOR MAKING SUCH PURCHASES AND CREDIT MAY NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE AMOUNT SPENT IN EXCESS OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT LIST PRICE.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, NOVEMBER 12, 1926:

R. A. FULWILER, PROHIBITION ADMINISTRATOR AT ROANOKE, VA., APPLIED SEPTEMBER 14, 1926, FOR REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. C-36899-TI, WHEREIN CREDIT FOR $7.86 WAS DISALLOWED IN HIS ACCOUNT, BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $10.60 PAID FOR 11 RUBBER STAMPS PURCHASED IN THE OPEN MARKET AND $2.74, THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH SUCH STAMPS COULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE GENERAL SUPPLY COMMITTEE CONTRACT.

IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW THE PROHIBITION ADMINISTRATOR STATES:

WITH REFERENCE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF $7.86 ON VOU. NO. 430 OF THE WINFREE PRINTING AND STAMP COMPANY, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR RUBBER STAMPS, I BEG TO ADVISE THAT THESE STAMPS WERE PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER, 1925, AT THE TIME OF THE REORGANIZATION OF THE PROHIBITION DEPARTMENT AND JUST AFTER THIS OFFICE HAD BEEN MOVED TO ROANOKE. DUE TO THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND LACK OF SUFFICIENT CLERICAL HELP, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROPER CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE OFFICE TO HAVE THE STAMPS COVERED BY THIS VOUCHER. TO HAVE SUBMITTED A REQUISITION TO THE WASHINGTON OFFICE FOR THESE STAMPS WOULD HAVE MEANT UNNECESSARY DELAY AND WOULD HAVE GREATLY HANDICAPPED THE WORK OF THIS OFFICE. THESE STAMPS WERE, THEREFORE, PURCHASED IN THE LOCAL MARKET AT THE REGULAR MARKET PRICE IN ORDER TO SECURE THEM WITHOUT DELAY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE BE REMOVED, AS THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE.

IN THE GENERAL SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES ADVERTISED AND CONTRACTED FOR THROUGH THE GENERAL SUPPLY COMMITTEE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1926, UNDER CLASS 1, STATIONERY, ETC., IT IS STATED IN BOLDFACE TYPE THAT ALL SUPPLIES LISTED THEREUNDER ARE FOR USE OF ALLFIELD SERVICES OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL. RUBBER STAMPS OF THE KINDS PURCHASED IN THIS INSTANCE ARE LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE UNDER ITEMS 1354 AND 1355 AND COULD HAVE BEEN SECURED FROM THE REGULAR CONTRACTOR AT A COST OF $2.74 FOR THE 11 STAMPS. THE SCHEDULE SHOWS THAT IF AN ORDER FOR RUBBER STAMPS IS DESIGNATED "SPECIAL" DELIVERY WILL BE MADE WITHIN 48 HOURS FROM RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS FACT THE PROHIBITION ADMINISTRATOR PLACED A VERBAL ORDER WITH A LOCAL CONCERN AT ROANOKE, VA., TO SUPPLY SUCH STAMPS AND PAID THE SUM OF $10.60 THEREFOR, THE VOUCHER STATING THAT IT WAS AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE.

IN THE INSTANT MATTER IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE STAMPS IN QUESTION WAS REQUESTED OR CONTEMPLATED, NEITHER DOES IT APPEAR ON WHAT DATE THE VERBAL ORDER FOR THE STAMPS WAS GIVEN NOR IS IT SHOWN THAT THE STAMPS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELIVERED AS EXPEDITIOUSLY BY THE REGULAR CONTRACTOR. THE RECORD AS PRESENTED SHOWS NO FACTS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION THAT AN EXIGENCY EXISTED SUCH AS IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 17, 1910, 36 STAT. 531, SO AS TO PERMIT PURCHASE ELSEWHERE THAN FROM THE REGULAR CONTRACTOR.