A-20319, OCTOBER 31, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 302

A-20319: Oct 31, 1927

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHEREIN WAS DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM FOR $78 AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PREMIUM PAID FOR A BOND OF INDEMNITY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MATTER OF ISSUANCE OF A DUPLICATE CHECK TO COVER TREASURY CHECK NO. 61495. THERE WERE PURCHASED FROM THE CLAIMANT FOR USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY SPARK PLUGS AMOUNTING TO $3. BEFORE RECEIVING A DUPLICATE CHECK THE CLAIMANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE AN INDEMNITY BOND. WE WERE WITHOUT THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS FOR FIVE MONTHS IN ADDITION TO THE EXPENSES FOR OBTAINING THE BOND. AS THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY FOR US TO OBTAIN PAYMENT FOR OUR INVOICE. IT WAS HELD: THE EXPENSE INCURRED FOR PREMIUM ON INDEMNITY BOND MADE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A DUPLICATE OF THE LOST. OR DESTROYED CHECK WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF THE VARIOUS CHARGES UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS NOT AN EXPENSE INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.

A-20319, OCTOBER 31, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 302

BONDS, INDEMNITY - PREMIUMS - DUPLICATE CHECKS PREMIUMS ON INDEMNITY BONDS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN DUPLICATES OF LOST, STOLEN, OR DESTROYED GOVERNMENT CHECKS DO NOT CONSTITUTE EXPENSES FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT MAY BE MADE FROM PUBLIC FUNDS.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, OCTOBER 31, 1927:

THE B. G. CORPORATION REQUESTED OCTOBER 12, 1927, REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. 050675, DATED OCTOBER 6, 1927, WHEREIN WAS DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM FOR $78 AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PREMIUM PAID FOR A BOND OF INDEMNITY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MATTER OF ISSUANCE OF A DUPLICATE CHECK TO COVER TREASURY CHECK NO. 61495, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,900, MAILED TO CLAIMANT ON NOVEMBER 29, 1926, BUT NEVER RECEIVED.

THE FACTS APPEAR TO BE AS FOLLOWS:

ON NOVEMBER 23, 1926, THERE WERE PURCHASED FROM THE CLAIMANT FOR USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY SPARK PLUGS AMOUNTING TO $3,900. ON NOVEMBER 29, 1926, MAJ. D. W. MOREY, F. D., UNITED STATES ARMY, HEADQUARTERS, MCCOOK FIELD, ISSUED AND MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT TREASURY CHECK NO. 61495 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,900. IT APPEARS THAT THE CHECK NEVER REACHED THE CLAIMANT, WHO LATER APPLIED FOR A DUPLICATE CHECK. BEFORE RECEIVING A DUPLICATE CHECK THE CLAIMANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE AN INDEMNITY BOND, THE PREMIUM THEREON BEING $78. THE CLAIMANT REQUESTS TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THE PREMIUM PAID ON SAID BOND, AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM STATES:

WE DELIVERED OUR MERCHANDISE TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DECLINED TO PAY US UNLESS WE SECURED A BOND FOR A DUPLICATE CHECK. THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMED AT THE TIME THAT A CHECK HAD BEEN MAILED TO US, BUT WE NEVER RECEIVED SUCH CHECK. THROUGH NO FAULT OF OURS, WE WERE WITHOUT THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS FOR FIVE MONTHS IN ADDITION TO THE EXPENSES FOR OBTAINING THE BOND.

WE WOULD THANK YOU TO RECONSIDER OUR CLAIM, AS THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY FOR US TO OBTAIN PAYMENT FOR OUR INVOICE.

IN A SIMILAR QUESTION CONSIDERED BY MY PREDECESSOR, 27 COMP. DEC. 727, 728, IT WAS HELD:

THE EXPENSE INCURRED FOR PREMIUM ON INDEMNITY BOND MADE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A DUPLICATE OF THE LOST, STOLEN, OR DESTROYED CHECK WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF THE VARIOUS CHARGES UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS NOT AN EXPENSE INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, BUT RATHER ONE INCURRED AFTER THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN PERFORMED. IT IS NOT AN EXPENSE FOR WHICH IN MY OPINION THE CONTRACTS AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT, AND YOU ARE ADVISED, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF THE VOUCHERS SUBMITTED TO YOU IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

THE CHECK IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS DULY ISSUED AND MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT; AND WHILE IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE CLAIMANT--- IF SUCH BE A FACT--- THE LOSS OF THE CHECK WAS NO MORE THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNMENT THAN OF THE CLAIMANT. THE PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH THE DUPLICATE CHECK WAS ISSUED IS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, AND ANY EXPENSE WHICH CLAIMANT MAY HAVE INCURRED IN COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW MUST BE BORNE BY IT. ..END :