The papers transmitted with the said voucher disclose that the amount thereof comprises payments made to the Knoxville General Hospital in the amount of $90.25, and to one J. P. Cullum, M. D., in the amount of $45 for professional services rendered to the said employee. In support of said payments, there is attached to the voucher a letter dated April 10, 1944, from the contractor to the District Engineer, U. S. Engineer Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which is, in pertinent part, as follows:

McDaniel worked as a laborer for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation under Badge No. 42978 and temporarily resided in Hut 16-G on the Project Site, as his permanent address was Millport, Alabama.

This man was reported sick on November 6, 1943 and was taken to our Field Hospital for treatment where, on examination by our Dr. H. Stuart Hodges, he revealed symptoms of meningitis and was immediately removed to the Knoxville General Hospital. According to the medical report of Dr. J. P. Cullum, he was treated for an undetermined type of meningitis and was discharged as cured on November 20, 1943. McDaniel did not have sufficient funds to defray the cost of hospitalization, as the Hospital requires a deposit of $30.00 before admission, and we were therefore obliged to guarantee the payment of this account to the Hospital. Since the date of discharge this man has not returned to work on the Project Site and consequently, we have been unable to arrange for collection of this debt.

This section of the State could not possibly supply the manpower requirements of so vast an enterprise and in order to prosecute the work in the best interests of the Government, we have found it necessary to recruit labor from bordering States, as well as more distant points, and to provide lodging on the Project Site for all individuals who have forsaken their homes to participate in this program which is all important to the war effort.

Employees suffering from sickness or disease, which in many instances are contagious, resulting in disability and confinement to bed must be removed from his or her domicile on the Project Site and provided with the necessary hospitalization to insure proper care and treatment.

In the McDaniel case and others of similar nature, we are morally obligated to render assistance to such persons who are unable to succor themselves because of insufficient funds, inaccessibility to home and friends, and the lack of an established program on the Project Site that would provide the necessary care and treatment required under these circumstances.

The insurance coverage provided under the War Department Insurance Rating Plan does not provide for non-occupational sickness or injury cases and in our opinion additional insurance to cover this classification would not be in the best interest of the Government as the anticipated losses by default on the part of the individual would be a small percentage of the premium payments for this class of insurance.

Where the individual has returned to work we have been able to secure payment in whole or in part in settlement of the account by arranging collections on convenient weekly installments. In the case presented herewith the employee, Luther McDaniel, did not return to work and our payment to the Doctor and the Hospital represents an expense to us under Contract W-7401eng-13.

Reimbursement is therefore claimed under Article XI, paragraph 1, subparagraph L of our Contract, which provides for losses and expenses not compensated by insurance or otherwise.

Article XI, paragraph 1, subparagraph 7, of the contract, referred to in the above quoted letter, is as follows:

Losses and expenses, not compensated by insurance or otherwise (including settlements made with the written consent of the Contracting Officer), actually sustained by the A-E-M in connection with the work and found and certified by the Contracting Officer to be just and reasonable unless reimbursement therefor is expressly prohibited herein.

While, under the terms of the said contract provision, the contractor is to be reimbursed for losses and expenses not compensated by insurance or otherwise, said provision, reasonably construed, may be considered as covering only such losses and/or expenses as are incurred by the contractor in the discharge of its legal obligations arising out of the performance of the contract work. In the present case, since it appears that the employee's illness and subsequent hospitalization did not arise out of his employment with the contractor, it is evident that the contractor was not legally obligated to guarantee the payment of such expenses. In fact, it is admitted by the contractor in its letter of April 10, supra, that it merely felt that its payment of the expense was a moral obligation. Moreover, medical services, by their nature, generally are considered as personal to, and properly for payment by, the employee concerned and, in the absence of a specific contractual provision providing for the payment thereof, the expense is not proper for charging to the Government as an allowable item of cost under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract. Therefore, and since a review of the entire contract fails to disclose any specific provision authorizing reimbursement to the contractor for expenditures made in connection with the treatment and hospitalization of an employee for non-occupational sickness or injury, it must be held that reimbursement therefor is not authorized.

Accordingly, the voucher, together with the accompanying papers, is returned herewith and you are advised that, for the reasons stated, payment thereon is not authorized.

(B-41674)

TRANSPORTATION-HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS-SHIPMENT TO POINT OTHER THAN NEW STATION

The uniform transportation-of-household-effects statute of October 10, 1940, and Executive regulations thereunder, while not specifically authorizing the shipment of household goods of a transferred employee to any point other than the new station (22 Comp. Gen. 478), do not preclude shipment at Government expense where, incident to an authorized change of station, the employee establishes his home at an intermediate point between the old and new stations.

Where, due to the present difficulty of obtaining transportation to Hawaii for dependents and household effects, an employee whose station was transferred from a point in the United States to Hawaii established his home at an intermediate point in the United States, no objection will be made by this office to the payment from an available appropriation of the expenses of transporting his household effects to the intermediate point, in accordance with the act of October 10, 1940, and Executive regulations thereunder. Comptroller General Warren to the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, May 24, 1944:

Reference is made to the letter of April 27, 1944, from T. J. Slowie, Certifying Officer, as follows:

There was submitted to me for certilcation vouchers in the total amount of $39.29, covering the transportation of household goods of an employee from Port Washington, Wisconsin to Marysville, Washington. The employee, however, was transferred from Port Washington to Hawaii. In view of the fact that it was practically impossible to transport his family to Hawaii due to existing circumstances he was authorzed by the Commission to ship his household goods to Marysville where he sent his family.

It now appears that there is no provision in Executive Order No. 8588 for the shipping of household goods at government expense other than to a permanent duty station. However, in view of the difficulties in civilian travel and things from the continental limits of this country to Hawaii, your opinion is desired as to whether the government may pay the expense in the amount above-cited or should it be collected from the employee.

The vouchers have been certified for payment in accordance with the Transportation Act of 1940 which provides for payment upon presentation without audit.

Section 3 of the act of December 29, 1941, 55 Stat. 876, grants a right to certifying officers "to apply for and obtain a decision by the Comptroller General on any question of law involved in a payment on any vouchers presented to them for certification." As the question submitted in this instance does not involve a question of law the decision of which is necessary to the certification of any voucher presently before the certifying officer, the matter here involved is not one properly for submission by a certifying officer under the authority of the referred-to statute. Rather, the question here presented involves one concerning administrative responsibility and for that reason reply to the certifying officer's request is being made to you as the head of the executive agency involved. See 19 Comp. Gen. 150, 400.

In 22 Comp. Gen. 478, at page 483, this office held:

(3) While Section 11 of the Regulations (Executive Order No. 9122), authorizes transportation of household goods from a point other than the last official station of an employee, provided the cost does not exceed the amount it would have cost to transport the household goods from the last official station to the new, there is no authority under the regulations or the law or the President's allocation letters, authorizing reimbursement to any point other than the new station of the employee.

*

* *

While it is true, as indicated in the decision, supra, that the laws and regulations thereunder do not specifically authorize the shipment of household goods to any point other than the new station of the employee, there appears no sound reason why an employee who, incident to an authorized change of station, establishes his home at an intermediate point between the old and the new stations, may not have his household effects shipped to such home at Government expense-the cost to the Government being less than the cost would have been had the shipment been to his new station. While, ordinarily, the establishment of the home at some intermediate point con templates its location at a point more or less accessible to the employee, it is recognized that the transportation of dependents and household effects to Hawaii at the present time-if not absolutely prohibited for military reasons-presents great difficulties; and, accordingly,

598796-44-vol. 23- -58

this office will not object to the otherwise proper payment from appropriated funds available for the transportation of household effects specifically, or the "transportation of things" generally (see section 201 (b) of Public Law 90, approved June 26, 1943, 57 Stat. 195), for the shipment of household effects of the employee here involved between his former station at Fort Washington, Wisconsin, and Marysville, Washington, as incidental to his transfer to Hawaii, provided, of course, the regulations issued by the President in Executive Orders 8588, 9122, and 9223, otherwise are complied with.

(B-41957)

MEDICAL TREATMENT-PRIVATE-EXPENSES OF PREVENTIVE TREATMENT FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

The purchase of drugs and their administration by a private physician to Weather Bureau employees as an immediate preventive measure after the employees were exposed in the line of duty to spinal meningitis, epidemic variety, and in order to obviate the possibility of the employees being quarantined and the resultant closing of the station, may be considered as having been necessary from an administrative standpoint and primarily for the benefit of the Government, rather than the employees, so as to justify payment of the expenses thereof from the Bureau's appropriation for salaries and expenses.

Acting Comptroller General Yates to D. Y. Engell, Department of Commerce, May 24, 1944:

I have your letter of May 10, 1944 (MAT/THE/Hi), as follows: Subject: Legality of purchases. Reference: Attached vouchers (two) in favor of Dr. Harry Mandell for Professional Services in the amount of $3.00 and San Bruno Pharmacy for drugs in the amount of $7.20.

DEAR SIR: The above referenced vouchers have been presented to me for approval as authorized certifying officer for payment from the appropriation "1341400.001, Salaries and Expenses, Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce (all other expenditures, 1944)."

Under the provision of Section 3 of the Act of December 29, 1941, 55 Stat. 876, your decision is respectfully requested as to whether or not the expenses on the vouchers are legally payable from the appropriation referred to above.

The voucher for $7.20 for purchases of drugs contains a statement as follows:

The drugs purchased and for which this voucher is submitted in payment were necessary in order to take immediate preventive measures after all airport Weather Bureau employees were exposed in the line of duty to spinal meningitis, epidemic variety, by CAA employee hospitalized on evening preceding this action. The action taken was the same as that taken by the CAA and was based upon medical advice. The physician in charge of the CAA case was of the opinion that quarantine of exposed personnel would be unnecessary if these measures followed. Quarantine of Weather Bureau personnel would have closed the station, since all were exposed.

The other voucher for $3 for professional services contains the following explanation:

Services of a physician in private practice secured after inability to locate representatives of Public Health Service within a practicable distance. Action

taken upon advice of physician in charge of case of epidemic meningitis among CAA personnel, and co-ordinated with similar action by CAA. Original purpose of action: to take reasonable precautionary measures against contagion of personnel exposed, and to obviate possible quarantine of Weather Bureau and CAA quarters.

The appropriation proposed to be charged, Salaries and Expenses, Weather Bureau, 1944, act of July 1, 1943, 57 Stat. 300, Public Law 105, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

For salaries and expenses necessary for carrying into effect in the United States and possessions, on ships at sea, and elsewhere when directed by the Secretary of Commerce, the provisions of sections 1 and 3 of an Act approved October 1, 1890 (15 U. S. C. 311-313), and section 803 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (49 U. S. C. 603), including investigations of atmospheric phenomena; cooperation with other public agencies and societies and institutions of learning *

In decision of July 14, 1942, 22 Comp. Gen. 32, it was stated:

this office has held that where the circumstances are such that medical attention to an employee-including inoculation or vaccination to which these examinations seem more or less akin in view of their precautionary naturemay be considered as primarily for the benefit of the Government rather than the employee, the expense thereof may properly be paid from appropriated funds. 2 Comp. Dec. 347; 6 id. 447; 60 MS Comp. Dec. 1425; A-29752, December 17, 1929; A-32786, August 8, 1930; A-97344, August 26, 1938. Cf. 15 Comp. Gen. 20. See, also, decisions B-26915, June 30, 1942; B-33058, March 23, 1943; and B-34228, May 21, 1943. Cf. 22 Comp. Gen. 243.

The purchase and administration of the drugs under the stated facts and circumstances appear to have been necessary from an administrative standpoint and primarily for the benefit of the Government rather than the employee. Accordingly, in line with the rule laid down in the decisions, supra, the two vouchers, if otherwise regular, may be processed for payment. The vouchers are returned herewith.

(B-40114)

PAY-LONGEVITY-CONTRACT SURGEONS

Contract surgeons serving full time, whose pay is fixed by section 1 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 as that of the second period, are not entitled to longevity increases in pay for prior military service as authorized for officers paid under the provisions of said section. While the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, which fixes the pay of contract surgeons serving full time as that of the second period, did not continue, as such, the specific provision in the act of June 10, 1922, for the payment of rental and subsistence allowances to such persons, otherwise proper payments of the allowances will not be questioned in the audit and settlement of accounts.

Assistant Comptroller General Yates to Col. R. B. Conner, U. S. Army, May 25, 1944:

By indorsement dated February 5, 1944, there was transmitted to this office your letter of December 17, 1943, with enclosures, requesting decision whether payment is authorized on a voucher transmitted