experience, drive a truck from Texas to Maryland. The necessity of this trip arose suddenly, and the employee was directed by telegram to drive from Lampasas, Texas, to Maryland. En route the truck traversed the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania there is a State tax on gasoline, which is refundable to the Federal Government after certain conditions have been complied with, among which is the securing from the respective secretaries of state of the necessary blanks for filing application for refund of said tax. In the emergency in question neither the employee nor the office of the Coast and Geodetic Survey in Washington had time to secure the necessary blanks, and in purchasing gas in those four States a total tax of $1.45 was paid, as follows: Missouri, 50¢; Indiana, 45¢; Ohio, 20¢; and Pennsylvania, 30¢. In emergencies such as that above referred to, would the payment of the State gasoline tax be a proper charge against the Government, where the amount involved is so small and the time of the Government agent so limited? If, under the above circumstances, the tax is not a proper charge against the Government, in view of the fact that the foreman hand in this case was a temporary employee acting under direct orders from Washington, who would be the person responsible for the payment of said tax? Circumstances such as those outlined above are of frequent occurrence in this department and in such cases it is practically impossible to secure the proper blanks from the State authorities in time to permit of their use when needed, and your decision is respectfully requested as to the proper procedure to be followed in future. The question presented appears to involve reimbursement to an employee for the amount of State tax on gasoline purchased while in a travel status for use in a Government conveyance. In considering a similar question it was held in decision of this office dated April 9, 1927, 6 Comp. Gen. 660, quoting from the syllabus, that: Where a Government employee purchased gasoline for authorized use on official business in a State that imposes a tax upon the distributer, the Federal Government may reimburse him for the full amount paid inclusive of the tax, and claim for refund of the tax may then be made by the administrative office, and when refunded such amount should be deposited and covered into the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation under which the reimbursement was made. A reference to the gasoline tax laws of the States of Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio discloses that the tax is imposed on the dealer or distributer in each instance. Therefore, if it was necessary for the employee to pay the amount of the tax on gasoline purchased by him for use in a Government-owned automobile while on official business reimbursement of the purchase price including the amount of the tax is authorized. See 5 Comp. Gen. 1022, 6 id. 660. However, there appears no valid reason why application for refund of the tax should not be made by the department, if provision is made in the State statute for such refund, and within the time limit prescribed by the State statute, which time it is understood is not less than 90 days. in any State whose laws provide for refund. The matter of refund in such cases is for the attention of the department concerned and not the employee. With reference to the reimbursement to the employee of the amount of State gasoline tax paid by him on gasoline purchased in the State of Pennsylvania, it appears that under the present practice established under the Pennsylvania statute no tax is collected upon liquid fuels sold or delivered the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the United States Government for actual consumption in the business of said Governments, provided that the dealer shall procure from the purchaser a certificate of exemption as prescribed by the Auditor General and forward the same to the Auditor General at the time of making report. See 1 Comp. Gen. 229, 230. The United States being exempted from the payment of tax on gasoline purchased in the State of Pennsylvania, the employee is not entitled to reimbursement for the amount of the tax alleged to have been paid by him in connection with the purchase of gasoline in the said State. (A-19044) ADVERTISING, ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER THAN LOWEST BIDSPECIFICATIONS In the purchase of automobiles, in ordinary cases, for the use of the United States, all makes and grades are for consideration in determining which will best meet the needs of the service, and bids should be requested on specifications drawn not by designation of a particular make nor to cover the mechanical construction of a particular make, but showing only such details as to the construction and performance requirements as can satisfactorily be shown to meet the needs of the service. The make or model of an automobile such as "stock model" is not the controlling element as to the acceptance or rejection of a bid. If an automobile offered to the Government at a lower price conforms to the essential requirements of the specifications and will satisfactorily meet the needs of the service the fact that it is not a stock model or that it has a belt-driven pump instead of a centrifugal pump in connection with the cooling system as specified and other minor mechanical differences, is not sufficient justification for the rejection of the lower bid and acceptance of the higher. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1927: I have your letter of June 29, 1927, as follows: Under date of April 11, 1927, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing advertised for proposals on two armored delivery trucks of two and one-half tons capacity, conforming to certain specifications. Sealed proposals were received and opened on April 29, 1927, pursuant thereto. These armored cars are intended for use in delivering currency and other securities to various points in the city of Washington. Four bids were received as follows: Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co., offering General Motors Truck Model K-52-S chassis.. 13, 450.00 $12,500.00 Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co. offering Pierce Arrow Model X-A chassis American Coach and Body Co., offering White Model 51 chassis, 13, 496. 18 13, 500.00 The proposals for the first two of the foregoing bids did not conform to the bureau's specifications. The variations are mentioned below: G. M. C. MODEL K-52-S While the General Motors Truck Company in its letter of May 31, 1927, attached, states that the G. M. C. Model K-52-S chassis is a standardized current stock model, the Washington representative of the company was unable to give any information concerning this model chassis. The Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing advises that the General Motors Company does not advertise this model, and it appears that the company plans to change its two and one-half ton truck in order to meet the bureau's specifications. In these circumstances the bureau would not be receiving a stock model two and one-half ton chassis, as required by the specifications, but, instead, would be receiving a special truck devised to meet the specifications. The Director of the Bureau regards it as essential that he receive a standard truck, so that there will be no difficulty with respect to the securing of replacement parts at some future date. Paragraph 13 of the specifications calls for the frame on the chassis to be not less than a 6" channel. The frame of Model K-52-A is made of 5%' channel. In a letter dated May 31, 1927, the General Motors Truck Company states that the Model K-52-S, on which the Schaefer Company failed to submit any data, is the same as Model K-52-A, except that the 5%" channel frame has an insert section 534"X" fastened to it, and that it has a larger engine, with cylinders of 4%1⁄2" bore by 61⁄2" stroke, developing a minimum of 40 brake horsepower. The Model K-52-A is rated at 37 (actual) brake horsepower. These changes which the General Motors Company offers to make convert their Model K-52-A into a special model, or one that is not standard. Paragraph 18 of the specifications provides that the cylinders have water passages cast integrally with the cylinder walls. The engine offered by the General Motors Company has removable liners in the cylinders. Paragraph 28 of the specifications calls for a geared centrifugal pump in connection with the cooling system. The General Motors Company engine uses a belt-driven pump. With the exception of the changes noted in the foregoing paragraphs, the chassis offered in this bid meets the bureau's specifications. PIERCE-ARROW MODEL X-A The next lowest proposal is that of the Gustav Schaefer Wagon Company, based on a Pierce-Arrow Model X-A chassis. Paragraph 3 of the specifications requires that the chassis be a standardized, current stock model, and also that it shall be rated by its manufacturer for a load, exclusive of body weight and accessories, of not less than 21⁄2 tons. PierceArrow Model X-A is rated by its manufacturer as a 2-ton truck chassis. Since the opening of the bids the Washington representative of the Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Company and the Gustav Schaefer Wagon Company have submitted letters to the effect that the X-A 2-ton chassis offered would be built up to their X-B 3-ton chassis standard, with the exception of the difference of material in the frame. The difference in material referred to is that the S-A 2-ton chassis is of 30-35 carbon steel, heat treated, and the X-B 3-ton is of chrome nickel steel, heat treated. This change would require the addition of one leaf to each of the rear springs, and making these changes, therefore, would convert this chassis into a model that is not a standard stock model with the Pierce-Arrow Company. The third and fourth bids meet the specifications of the bureau in every respect. In order that the award of the contract may be made in conformity with the findings of your office, the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing wants to know whether, in view of the specifications, he should award the contract to a bidder who offers a current stock model on which certain mechanical changes have been made in order to meet the specifications, whether or not the mechanical changes are objectionable; or whether the award must be made to the bidder whose current stock model meets the specifications in every respect without alterations. Under existing laws governing purchase of equipment for the Government, the controlling element is, the job to be done the work necessary to be accomplished. The request for bids should fairly reflect the actual need, through specifications or otherwise, and the equipment to be had at the lowest price that will serve the purpose is that authorized to be purchased at public expense. The matter of the purchase of automobiles and the drawing of specifications to accompany the advertisement for bids has been the subject of numerous decisions by this office and it has uniformly been held that for all ordinary uses, all makes and grades of automobiles are for consideration in determining which will best meet the needs of the service, and that bids should be requested on specifications drawn not by designation of a particular make or to cover the mechanical construction of a particular make, but should show only such details as to construction and performance requirements as can satisfactorily be shown necessary to meet the needs of the service. 5 Comp. Gen. 771; id. 963. An examination of the specifications in the instant matter discloses that they were drawn with greater detail than necessary or proper in that they cover mechanical construction of the engine and other nonessential details. It appears that what the Government requires in this case is two armored automobile trucks of sufficient power, durability, etc., for use in delivering currency and other securities from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to various places in the city of Washington, D. C. The make or model of an automobile such as "stock model" is not the controlling element as to the acceptance or rejection of a bid. In other words, if the automobile offered at a lower price conforms to the essential requirements of the specifications and will satisfactorily meet the needs of the service, the fact that it is not a "stock model " or that it has a belt-driven pump instead of a centrifugal pump in connection with the cooling system, as specified, and other minor mechanical differences, is not sufficient justification for the rejection of the lower bid and acceptance of the higher. The bid of the Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co. offering General Motors truck, Model K-52-S chassis, at a price of $12,500 is the lowest of the bids received, and it appears that the machine offered meets in every respect the needs of the service and also conforms to the essential requirements of the specifications, differing only in minor mechanical details. Accordingly, the said bid should be accepted. (A-19038) TRANSPORTATION-NAVAL PRISONERS The Secretary of the Navy is authorized under the act of March 3, 1909, 35 Stat. 756, to provide by regulation that transportation not exceeding in cost the transportation from the naval prison to the prisoner's home or place of enlistment may be furnished to a place other than the home or place of enlistment of a discharged naval prisoner when so requested by him, and when in the judgment of the prison authorities it is to the interest of the discharged prisoner to provide transportation to the place selected by him. 22 Comp. Dec. 189, reversed. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, July 11, 1927: There has been received your fourth indorsement of June 27, 1927, requesting decision of questions presented by the commanding officer, naval prison, Parris Island, S. C., whether transportation may be furnished to discharged naval prisoners to places other than their homes or places of enlistment "provided all claims for any difference in cost to the Government be waived." The question arises under the provision contained in the naval appropriation act of March 3, 1909, for the fiscal year 1910, 35 Stat. 756: * That the Secretary of the Navy is hereafter authorized to transport to their homes or places of enlistment, as he may designate, all discharged naval prisoners; the expense of such transportation shall be paid out of any money that may be to the credit of prisoners when discharged; where there is no such money, the expense shall be paid out of money received from fines and forfeitures imposed by naval courts-martial: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to furnish naval prisoners upon discharge suitable civilian clothing in case, and only where, said discharged prisoners would otherwise be unprovided with suitable clothing to meet their immediate needs. The precise question presented was considered by a former Comptroller of the Treasury, 22 Comp. Dec. 189, and it was held that the furnishing of transportation under the cited act to places other than the homes or places of enlistment of discharged naval prisoners was not authorized. That decision, although it does not cite it, seems to have been based upon an earlier decision to the Attorney General, 19 Comp. Dec. 293, construing the act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 466, making appropriations under the Department of Justice and authorizing transportation for United States prisoners to "place of conviction or place of bona fide residence in the United States." The latter decision seems to have been concerned primarily with a construction of the term "bona fide residence " rather than the intent of the legislation authorizing the furnishing of transportation. Thereafter, the Department of Justice appropriation act was broadened to include not only the place of conviction or bona fide residence but also "such other places within the United States as may be authorized by the Attorney General "; see 38 Stat. 868. This terminology has been carried into section 9 of the act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 473, establishing a Federal Industrial Institution for Women, and into section 10 of the act of January 7, 1925, 43 Stat. 724, establishing a United States industrial reformatory. The purpose of the provisions of law for a gratuity of money, clothing, and transportation to the place where convicted in the case of civil prisoners, to the place of enlistment in the case of naval prisoners, or to their homes. is to enable the former prisoner to reestablish himself in the civil community as a law-abiding citizen which would be difficult, if not impossible, if discharged without funds, with unfit clothing, and in the vicinity of the prison in which |