B-145536, DEC. 16, 1965
Highlights
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20. APPEARS TO HAVE A PRECISE AND WELL-RECOGNIZED MEANING IN LAW. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SURETY HAS DONE ALL HE IS REQUIRED TO BY WAY OF JUSTIFICATION UP TO THAT POINT. IF THIS IS CORRECT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THAT CONTAINED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS: "THE INDIVIDUAL SURETY SHALL SHOW NET WORTH IN A SUM NOT LESS THAN THE PENALTY OF THE BOND BY SUPPLYING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE FACE HEREOF. ATTENTION IS INVITED TO A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW WORD APPEARING IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE REVISED FORM.
B-145536, DEC. 16, 1965
TO HONORABLE LAWSON B. KNOTT, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1965, FROM YOUR ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, REGULATIONS AND GENERAL LAW DIVISION, SUBMITTING FOR OUR REVIEW AND COMMENT A PROPOSED REVISION OF STANDARD FORM 28, AFFIDAVIT OF INDIVIDUAL SURETY, NOVEMBER 1950 EDITION, A SPECIMEN OF WHICH APPEARS IN 41 CFR 1-16.901-28.
IN HIS LETTER, MR. BARRON POINTS OUT THAT REVISIONS IN THE FORM APPEAR NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE THE ADMISSION OF ALASKA AND HAWAII TO STATEHOOD, TO PROVIDE A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE STATEMENT RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SURETY, AND TO INCLUDE A CLARIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SURETY BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS THE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REQUIREMENT.
OUR ONLY RESERVATION REGARDING THE REVISED FORM RELATES TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED ON THE REVERSE THEREOF. WHILE THE TERM "JUSTIFY," AS USED THEREIN, APPEARS TO HAVE A PRECISE AND WELL-RECOGNIZED MEANING IN LAW, WE FEEL THAT THE TERM MIGHT NOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY LAYMEN EXECUTING THE AFFIDAVIT AS SURETY.
BY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR ON THE FACE OF THE FORM AND EXECUTING THE INSTRUMENT BEFORE AN OFFICER HAVING AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATHS GENERALLY, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SURETY HAS DONE ALL HE IS REQUIRED TO BY WAY OF JUSTIFICATION UP TO THAT POINT. IF THIS IS CORRECT, IN THE INTEREST OF ASSURING SUCH UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF BOTH THE SURETY AND THE ADMINISTERING OFFICER, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THAT CONTAINED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS:
"THE INDIVIDUAL SURETY SHALL SHOW NET WORTH IN A SUM NOT LESS THAN THE PENALTY OF THE BOND BY SUPPLYING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE FACE HEREOF, UNDER OATH, BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER, A CLERK OF A UNITED STATES COURT, OR NOTARY PUBLIC, OR SOME OTHER OFFICER HAVING AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATHS GENERALLY.'
ATTENTION IS INVITED TO A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW WORD APPEARING IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE REVISED FORM, WHICH CORRECTLY SHOULD BE ,THEREIN" INSTEAD OF "HEREIN.'