pears to have been paid, however, it appears that an insufficient amount may have been deducted from the employee's per diem for the Government furnished quarters during the period of his official duty in Mogadiscio. Therefore, we suggest that the computations on such voucher be verified and collection action be instituted for any overpayments which may have been made.

The enclosures submitted with your letter are returned herewith.

[B-140417]

Civilian Personnel-Training-Per Diem Allowance--At Headquarters—Necessary Training Expense

Upon determination by the head of a department under section 10 of the Government Employees Training Act that the payment of a stipulated sum a day, which includes meals and room for a Government employee at his headquarters while participating in a training program, is a necessary training expense, no objection to the payment will be made even though a per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence may not be authorized for employee who is not in a travel status. To the Secretary of Agriculture, August 19, 1959:

On August 6, 1959, the Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture requested our decision whether in the circumstances set forth below payment of $12 per day may be made to an employee of the Department of Agriculture while attending a training course in the same locality as his headquarters.

The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture says that your department has had occasions in the past to assign certain personnel to attend the "Personnel Management for Executives Conference" conducted by the Department of the Army at the Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, California. The Department of the Army requires that those who attend the course must "live-in" at the Claremont Hotel during the period of the course. It is indicated that dinner meeting sessions, and other meetings, which are considered an integral part of the course are conducted in the evenings. Arrangements have been made by the Department of the Army with the Hotel Claremont to house all participants at a cost of $12 per day which includes meals and room.

It is proposed that an employee whose official station is in Berkeley, California, be assigned to take the course during the period August 19 to August 28, 1959, and the Department of Agriculture pay the necessary expenses. The doubt in the matter arises because the training will take place at the employee's designated post of duty and per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence may not properly be authorized since the employee would not be in a travel status.

The specific question submitted for a decision is whether your department may either authorize the employee to incur the expenses connected with the use of hotel service or facilities and reimburse him, or procure the services directly from the Claremont Hotel and assign the employee to use the services so provided.

Section 10 of the Government Employees Training Act, Public Law 85-507, 5 U.S.C. 2309, provides, in part, as follows:

Sec. 10. The head of each department in accordance with regulations issued by the Commission under authority of section 6(a) (8) is authorized from funds appropriated or otherwise available to such department *** (2) to pay, or reimburse such employee for all or any part of the necessary expenses of such training, without regard to section 3648 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529), including among such expenses the necessary cost (f) other services or facilities directly related to the training of

such employee. * Concerning regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission pursuant to Public Law 85-507, section 39.401 of the Federal Personnel Maual, Chapter T-1-22, Training, provides as follows:

Section 39.401. Determination of Necessary Expenses of Training. The head of each department shall determine which expenses constitute necessary training expenses under section 10 of the Act.

On page 22 of House of Representatives Report No. 1951, 85th Congress, to accompany S. 385, which became Public Law 85-507, it is said in part:

*** The section also authorizes the department head to cover the necessary expenses of an employee in training either by reimbursing him for those expenses or by providing money in advance in anticipation of such expenses. The necessary expenses include *** other expenses directly related to the training of such employee.

Under the applicable law and regulations, if you should determine that the expenses here in question are necessary training expenses we would interpose no objection thereto, and upon that basis the specific question presented is answered in the affirmative.

[B-139730]

Appropriations-Air-Conditioning Leased Space-Agency v. General Services Administration-Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

Inasmuch as the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance budgets for the cost of leased space, including the cost of maintaining and servicing such space, and finances such expenditures from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the General Services Administration does not include in its budget funds for leased space occupied by the Bureau, funds of the Bureau may be used to reimburse General Services Administration for the purchase, installation, and servicing of air-conditioning in non-federally-owned leased space, provided that it is administratively determined that air-conditioning would be in the interest of the Government.

Funds of the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance made available for expenditure from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund are

not available to reimburse the General Services Administration for the purchase, installation, and servicing of air-conditioning equipment in federally owned buildings when the General Services Administration has not budgeted for such expenditures because the General Services Administration has the responsibility for air-conditioning buildings under its control and, in the absence of specific statutory authority therefor, an agency's funds are not available for such purpose.

To the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, August 20, 1959:

Your letter of May 25, 1959, refers to our decision of September 11, 1958, B-132396, 38 Comp. Gen. 193, to the Administrator of General Services, concerning the availability of agency appropriations for air-conditioning space in federally owned buildings under the control of the General Services Administration.

You quote the following language from our decision:

In view of the Congressional intent as disclosed by the quoted and cited Congressional Reports and Hearings, it must be assumed that the Congress does not intend the various Federal agencies to use their appropriations for air conditioning space they occupy in Federally-owned buildings under the control of your Administration in cases where your appropriations are insufficient for that purpose.

What is said herein has reference to and should be understood, insofar as air conditioning buildings outside the District of Columbia and its surrounding area is concerned, as relating only to Federally-owned buildings under the control of GSA and not necessarily as controlling with regard to leased space under such control. Should you feel a different conclusion is warranted as to air conditioning leased space and a need therefor arises, we would be pleased to consider any question you may wish to raise with regard thereto upon a showing by you of all of the factors pertinent to the matter.

Your letter continues in pertinent part as follows:

The administrative expenses of the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance are financed by funds which Congress annually authorizes the Bureau to expend directly from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund rather than by an appropriation from the general funds of the Treasury. In its annual budgets, the Bureau has been providing for the costs of the leased space it occupies. In addition, the Bureau's budgets have provided for the maintenance and servicing of its space, including air conditioning. Except for space occupied by the Bureau outside the continental limits of the United States, the Bureau has been reimbursing the General Services Administration for that Agency's costs in leasing, maintaining and servicing leased space occupied by the Bureau. Accordingly, the General Services Administration has not budgeted for funds for leased space occupied by the Bureau nor has the General Services Administration provided air conditioning for the Bureau without reimbursement from the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance funds.

In connection with the foregoing you present the following questions for decision:

1. Does the decision of September 11, 1958, B-132396, apply to the Bureau so as to preclude reimbursement to the General Services Administration for the purchase, installation and servicing of air conditioning equipment in non-Federally-owned space occupied by the Bureau?

2. If the above reimbursement is proper, should not the Bureau's administrative funds be available to reimburse the General Services Administration for similar expenditures in Federal space when that Administration has not budgeted for such expenditures?

Inasmuch as the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance budgets for the cost of leased space it occupies, including the cost of maintaining and servicing such space, and finances such expenditures from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and since the General Services Administration does not budget for funds for leased space occupied by the Bureau, the Bureau's funds may be used to reimburse General Services Administration for the purchase, installation, and servicing of air-conditioning equipment in leased space occupied by the Bureau, provided it is administratively determined that air-conditioning of the space involved would be in the interest of the Government. However, expenditures of Bureau funds for the purpose in question would be subject to the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 317, and, in an appropriate case, to the limitations in 40 U.S.C. 278a, together with any other statutory restrictions applicable to leased space. Cf. B-17550, July 7, 1941; and 20 Comp. Gen. 105.

Your first question is answered accordingly.

Concerning your second question, on the present record what we said in 38 Comp. Gen. 193 (and for the reasons set forth therein), in connection with the air-conditioning of space in federally owned buildings would appear to be for application to the Bureau of OldAge and Survivors Insurance. Therefore, your second question is answered in the negative.

[B-139895]

Contracts-Bid Bonds-Failure to Extend Effective Date of Bond-Propriety of Award

A bid bond on which the effective date was not extended when the low bidderalong with other bidders-was requested to and did extend the time for bid acceptance may be distinguished from a case where failure to comply with a bid bond requirement renders the bid nonresponsive or where a waiver of the bond requirements would be prejudicial to other bidders; therefore, an award to a low bidder who was not requested to extend his bid bond or to submit proof of formal extension of the bid bond is not improper.

To the Wise Contracting Company, Incorporated, August 21, 1959: Reference is made to your telegram of July 11, 1959, protesting the award of a contract to Virginia Engineering Company, Inc., by the General Services Administration, for the construction of a Post Office building at Portsmouth, Virginia. You contend that since the acceptance date was extended at the request of the contracting officials by the above-named bidder without obtaining a sponding extension of its bid bond such bid became invalid and, therefore, may not legally be accepted by the Government.

In connection with your protest a factual report dated July 30, 1959, from the Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, has been furnished us which discloses that such an extension of time for the acceptance of the bids was obtained from the three bidders who appeared to be the lowest. However, the agency did not request those bidders to obtain or to submit proof of formal extensions of bid bond coverages, and it was not ascertained whether the surety of Virginia Engineering Company, Inc., extended the effective date of its original bid bond.

Bidders were required under the terms of the invitation to submit a bid guaranty in the amount of two percent of their bids to indemnify the Government in the event the successful bidder refused to execute a contract upon acceptance of its bid. The low bidder complied with that stipulation. The extension of the time for acceptance was requested by and for the benefit of the Government. There was nothing in the bid form stipulations that required an extension of the bid bond. The low bidder in this instance fully complied with all of the prerequisites necessary to constitute the filing of a complete and responsive bid.

In a recent decision dated February 5, 1959, 38 Comp. Gen. 532, we held that the bid bond requirement of an invitation is a material part thereof which may not be waived, and noncompliance requires the rejection of such bid as nonresponsive. However, there is a clear distinction between that case and the instant matter in that here the invitation did not require that prospective bidders obtain an extension of their original bid bond, or furnish an additional bond in the event the acceptance period was extended beyond the date fixed by the terms of the invitation. In other words, there is not involved here a failure to comply with a requirement of the invitation which rendered the bid nonresponsive; nor is there involved here the waiver of a material requirement of the invitation to the prejudice of other bidders.

Under the circumstances, we find no legal basis for disturbing the action taken by the General Services Administration in accepting the low bid received in this procurement.

[B-140083]

Military Personnel-Gratuities-Six Months' Death-Children-Conflicting Guardians

Where different guardians appointed by courts of different jurisdictions each claims six months' death gratuity due the minor child of deceased enlisted man, the guardian in actual control of the person and property of the minor child, who was appointed by the court whose jurisdiction to appoint a guardian has been tested between the two contending guardians, may be recognized to receive