B-163307, MAR. 3, 1969

B-163307, MAR. 3, 1969

TO MRS. NEDRA A. BLACKWELL:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 6, 1968, AND YOUR SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1969, YOUR REFERENCE 360, CONCERNING THE REIMBURSEMENT MADE TO MR. DONALD F. SOMERS FOR THE ATTORNEY FEE HE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE IN THE VICINITY OF HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION.

YOU QUESTION WHETHER MR. SOMERS WAS PROPERLY REIMBURSED THE ATTORNEY FEE HE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE IN ELMER CITY, WASHINGTON, IN VIEW OF OUR DECISIONS WHICH HAVE DENIED REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH FEES IF THEY ARE FOR SERVICES OF AN ADVISORY NATURE. B-161891, AUGUST 21, 1967, B-163203, MARCH 1, 1968.

THE STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY INVOLVED WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY MR. SOMERS AS SUPPORT FOR HIS CLAIM INDICATES THAT THE LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED WERE FOR PREPARATION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN THE TRANSACTION AND FOR "INCIDENTAL CONSULTATION" IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE. WE NOTE THAT AN ATTORNEY FEE FOR ADVISORY SERVICES WHICH AN EMPLOYEE OBTAINS AS A MATTER OF PRUDENCE TO PROTECT HIS INTERESTS IS NOT REIMBURSABLE. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT CERTAIN CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PARTIES INVOLVED ARE REQUIRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL SERVICES THE COST OF WHICH IS REIMBURSABLE UNDER SECTION 4.2C OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 DOES NOT MAKE PAYMENT OF THE FULL ATTORNEY FEE IMPROPER.

IN THIS CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE CONSULTATION SERVICES IN QUESTION WERE NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH SERVICES INVOLVING OTHER ITEMS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE REGULATIONS. THEREFORE, RECOVERY OF THE REIMBURSEMENT TO MR. SOMERS FOR THE ATTORNEY FEE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE REQUIRED.